The Rest Is Politics: Leading - 180. The Only European Leader Defying Trump? (Pedro Sánchez)

Episode Date: March 16, 2026

Why is Prime Minister Sánchez such an outlier in challenging Trump on everything from military spending to Gaza? What’s behind Spain’s recent economic success? How is Spain tackling the rising far-right? What are Pedro Sánchez’s lessons for Keir Starmer?  Alastair and Rory are joined by Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain, to answer all this and more.  Search IG.com to find out more and/or Look for IG in your app store. Join The Rest Is Politics Plus: Start your free trial at therestispolitics.com to unlock exclusive bonus content – including Rory and Alastair’s miniseries – plus ad-free listening, early access to episodes and live show tickets, an exclusive members’ newsletter, discounted book prices, and a private chatroom on Discord. Social Producer: Celine Charles Video Editor: Lorcan Moullier + James Clayden Producer: Alice Horrell Senior Producer: Nicole Maslen Head of Politics: Tom Whiter Exec Producers: Tony Pastor + Jack Davenport Advertise with us: [e-mail] 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 restispolics.com. The Iran War. We're facing a witnessing of all these international order based on rules. Real allies are like real friends. They tell each other the truth, no matter what. When it comes to our relationship with the U.S., I mean, we want to keep. that transatlantic bond. But if you go into the details, what you see is that we have an open trade war, which was open unilaterally by the US administration. I do believe that Europe needs

to be a force of good, because our enemies, what they want is to have a more fragmented Europe. You're one of a very, very small number of left-acenter-center leaders. I know Britain, sadly, is not in the European Union, but what would you like to see the UK do? I would like to, definitely, to have the UK on board again. I think that the framework has change because of Brexit, but on the other hand, I think that societies can make mistakes and I think it was a mistake for the UK to live the European Union. This episode is brought to you by IG. If you're listening to Leading, the chances are that you're someone who thinks seriously about politics, about economics and your own financial

future. So here's something genuinely worth knowing. IG's flexible stocks and shares, ISA, lets you withdraw and top up money within the same tax year without losing your tax-free allowance. And that is all on top of charging zero commission and zero account fees. This ISA season, they're giving away up to £3,000 cashback when you transfer your existing ISA over to IG. Use the code, ISA-L-E-A-L-A-D-I-N-G. Search IG.com to find out more. IG, trade, invest, progress. Your capital is at risk. Issa rules, tax rules and TNCs apply. Cashback offer is for new customers only and cannot be used in conjunction with other promotions.

Offer ends 5th April 2026. Other fees may apply. Welcome to the Restis Politics, leading with me Rory Stewart. And me, Alice Campbell. And our more obsessive listeners may remember a rest of politics question time a few years ago when I was asked, which is my favorite government building around the world? And we're in it. It's La Montcloa, which is the home of the Spanish president, the prime minister. We call you prime minister, but the Spanish call you president. But this is a very modern, very bright, very classy building, which is kind of the image that President Sanchez tries to project of himself and of Spain. But what's really interesting, when we announced that we were going to be interviewing you on the podcast last week,

we were inundated with suggestions and comments and questions. And I think they showed just how polarizing politics is right now. We had lots of people saying, ask him about his growth-promoting liberal immigration policies, asking him about his amazing record on renewables, asking him about paternity pay, asking him about a bit of rising the minimum wage, and above all,

asking him about a very, very strong position that he's taken on some of the foreign policy issues, Gaza, more lately, Iran. And then your critics would say that he's got this very rickety coalition, and he's only been able to put through three budgets in eight years, and he's had to rely on these kind of strange collection of separatist parties,

and there's the stuff that's been a lot in the media about corruption and there's lots on the pro side and there's lots on the anti side and we want to cover all of that. But I want to start, if I may, with, I don't know whether this will get us off on the wrong foot, but telling you why I was in this building. 20 years ago, it was with Tony Blair to persuade Jose Maria Athna to get involved in the Iraq War.

Oh, okay. So I just wonder whether that's a good place to start because it shows how much. Spain has changed between now and now. It's been a while. Yeah. You know what I mean? I do, though.

Well, thank you very much for having me and I'm ready to, I'm happy to answer all these questions. And as you said already, I think that Spain has shift its approach when it comes to this illegal wars, that if you take the experience of the Iraqi war, it didn't bring anything good for the Middle East for Europe. and for the whole world. So we need to have the courage to learn lessons and look for other solutions in order to resolve most of these instability challenges that we are facing around the world. Focus through what happened

and the decision that you made to come out very clearly to say that you were not supporting the legality of President Trump and Israel's action in Iran. Was that a difficult decision? How long did the decision? decision take you? Did you think about it for many hours? Did you debate with your team? I debated with my team. I debated, of course, within the coalition government. I also, you know, thought about it because, you know, this has been a very consistent and very coherent position when

it comes to international politics, because we're facing a witnessing of all these international order based on rules. And since the Ukrainian war and afterwards, the Gaza Strip War and nowadays the Iran War, I think it's very important to have a consistent approach when it comes to fulfill our obligations in international realm and, of course, a fulfilling international legality. This has been our approach when the US administration asked us to use our military bases in the southern of Spain, and we, of course, reject the use of this military bases to, let's say, deploy their military capabilities in the Middle East. What was going on in your mind in terms of thinking, what price might I have to pay for this?

What might Donald Trump do to punish me for doing this? Of course, you know, there's always a trade-off. There's always this kind of debate within our government. But at the end of the day, it's also true that, you know, real allies, are like real friends. They tell each other the truth, no matter what. And when it comes to our relationship with the US, I mean, the whole European Union, it is true that we want to keep that transatlantic bond. But if you go into the details, what you see is that we have an open trade war, which was open unilaterally by the US administration. There's also a question mark

when it comes to the respect of our territory integrity, that means Greenland. And of course, Europe is not in the negotiations process when it comes to the security European architecture and the end of the Ukrainian war. So at the end of the day, I think that is important to strengthen the European pillar. That will bring us to have a stronger, I believe, transatlantic relationship in the coming years. What didn't happen is a common European position. I mean, what happened was a sense of splintering. And I'm just wondering what lessons we can learn from this.

Is there more that Europe, UK, Canada could have done in advance to have a joint position on this rather than end up with everybody going in different directions? Well, there's actually no common position even in the US politics within the US society. So this is a unilateral war that has been started by two nations, by two governments, without consulting, without coordinating with their allies. And this is, I think, very, very important to keep in mind. And afterwards, the consequences of all this war, not only casualties, instability and security, as the Iraqi war brought us in Europe and also across the world, also for the global south and for our citizens will meet an erosion of our welfare state and, of course, the middle class and working class incomes and, let's say, welfare, no? But, Prime Minister, your position on international law was the normal position for everybody five years ago, 10 years ago.

And normally, we would say a US president needs to go to Congress. He should try to make some kind of argument to the United Nations. he should speak to his allies. So five years ago, you would expect Oscella Vandeleine, the German Chancellor, Macron, the Canadians, the Brits, all to come out on your position. But something's changed. Now they all come out in 15 different positions. So what's happened to the world in the last five years? Why are they not all saying this is clear, this is international law?

In my view, there's a wave of far right that is undermining also international order. and the international order based on rules. Do you see Trump as being far right? I see that there's a clear challenge coming from the US administration when it comes to weakening and undermining international order. This is point number one. Point number two, I think that they are also profiting from the lack of political willingness from nations before the current US administration to reform

and upgrade the international order to the 21st century. But that doesn't mean that we have to go back to 19th century. What we want and we need to do is to fix what is not working in the international order, but also to keep the things that are working. And that, for example, brought us this period of peace that we have profit over the last decades. So the dilemma is not to have an old and new international. international order. The dilemma is to have upgrading international order to the 21st century or to go back to 19th century and, of course, to have the law of the force.

Do you feel quite lonely politically? I was thinking about... No, I don't think so. I think that at the end of the day, if you see, there's also a shift when it comes to the position of different governments vis-à-vis the Iran war. There's a shift in the political positions of these governments and administrations, because the societies, their societies, are not following that political position. Also, I think it's very important to have in mind that nowadays international politics, it's not only states, there are many, many societies that are engaged, and they are against this kind of illegalities. But when, for example, Chancellor Mertz was sitting alongside President Trump in the White House and Trump went off on one of

his rants about Spain. And you're a terrible person and Spain's terrible and we're going to punish them and not do any trade with them. Did you not feel that Chancellor Mertz should have spoken up for you as a fellow European? I mean, I can imagine that it's a very uncomfortable situation. And what I heard from and understand from Chancellor Mertz is that of course, in his private meeting, of course, he explains that trade policy is in the hands of the European and it's not a question of bilateral. And by the way, Spain suffers trade deficit when it comes to our bilateral relations with the US. So it's not the case of the Spanish economy towards the US where they have and suffered this trade deficit. But anyhow, you know, I think that is a very

uncomfortable situation. And of course, for me, what is important is that Chancellor Merz, of course, supported Spain and supported the unity of the European Union when it comes to this kind of coercion words that of course President Trump likes to use. But so when I go back to the time when Tony Blair was prime minister, so there was a period when Gonzalez was here, Schroeder in Germany, Josvon and France, Proudy in Italy,

there were a lot of left of centre leaders in Europe. You're one of a very, very small number of left of centre leaders. And I just wonder whether you think that your relationship, I know Britain sadly is not in the European Union, but whether the relationship with Britain as a fellow centre-left, you're probably to the left of the Labour government, but you're both centre-left. Yeah, no, we have a great relationship.

I think that the framework has changed, obviously, because of Brexit, but on the other hand, the relationship is very good between governments and also within our societies. No, let me just say about Europe that, you know, I do believe that Europe needs to be nowadays, especially nowadays, force of good. And that means that we need to build up alliance, not only with the US,

but of course, but also with the rest of the world. We need to have a more engagement approach when it comes to all these global debates that the US, unfortunately, they just rejected. Global warming, inequality, social justice, migration. Of course, what shall we do with AI and regulation, or at least creating this alliance across countries and across societies in order to have a more human approach to this new kind of technology. So there are plenty of global debates that we need to focus ourselves more than creating this kind of new problems that it won't create any good for the region and for the world. How do you create the structures to do this? because if we take the examples that you've used, as soon as we start talking about defense cooperation,

suddenly France wants to help French defense companies. As soon as we're talking about AI tech cooperation, Britain is cutting side deals with Google, somebody else is doing this. We talk about international law. You take one position. Mark Carney takes one position and changes his position three days. How are you going to coordinate?

How are you going to get a joint voice out of with your allies? We need to be more coordinated that is true. I think that, of course, there are historical roots that explain foreign policy nowadays. For instance, what is happening with Germany when it comes to its relationship with the Prime Minister Netanyahu or Spain when it comes to the US. So there's, of course, historical roots that explain different nuances when it comes to foreign policy. But in my view, there's a lack of a European vision when it comes to these global debates. And the paradox that Europe face is also that we need to federalize more our policies on capital and saving union market, energy, union market, the digital union market, defense European industry.

We need to scale up, definitely. But at the same time, we have, because of this far right wave within Europe, we have more nationalistic governments that want to keep that policies in their own hands. And that makes Europe weaker because our enemies, what they want is to have a more fragmented Europe and not a more united Europe. That is why I think that within the European Union, there are governments that are ready to share that sovereignty. And that is why I think that we need to move forward in different speeds, different countries that we are already ready. Where do you stand on the debate about enlargement? looking at bringing in other countries at different pace, at different times.

Well, I think that we actually, actually, because of our historical roots, because we're commemorating this year, the 40th anniversary of the enlargement of the European Union to the Arabrian Peninsula, we're happy to have more countries. But there's been none for 13 years now. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. But there's, of course, technical criteria, yes, but there's also geopolitical decisions that we need to take. And I think that Ukraine, Moldova, and of course, Western Balkans are the, let's say, the duties that the European Union needs to fulfill the enlargement, I mean, in order to complete the European Union political project. And that also means that we need to do our own reforms, internal reforms, mainly in the decision-making process, which is, you know, difficult sometimes.

You think there should be less decided by unanimity? Exactly. For instance. For instance. There are two models for Ukraine, Moldova, Western Balkans. One model is, which sometimes Matacost seems to talk about, is an idea that you go bold. You say, you're going to be a European Union member, and then later you will catch up. And the alternative model is that you offer them some kind of for freedom, single market style membership, and then a path to a deadline. We are ready for you in 2013. Which is the model that you prefer? We have already experienced that and tested with this partnership that we build up with Ukraine and other countries such as Georgia and Moldova.

I think that for our strategic or geoconomics and geopolitics from Europe, I mean, I do believe that we need to enlarge towards Ukraine and Moldova. This is my opinion. We believe that in Europe, we're ready to do that and we'll make Europe stronger. Montenegro, Albania, Serbia. And of course the Western Balkans. That will also mean for southern countries to keep geopolitics not only in the eastern flank of Europe or the Arctic, because there are all the countries such as Iceland that are thinking what to do in the future if they become or not a member of the European Union.

And the big question mark is what the UK will do in the future. What would you like to see the UK? I would like to definitely to have the UK on board again. I think that societies can make mistakes, but also you can review those mistakes. And I think it was a mistake for the UK to leave the European Union. And today, I think that there's a lot of data and facts that, of course, shows that that path was not the correct one. Just before we leave the international on the foreign policy side of things, are you under no political pressure domestically? to spend more on defense.

That's something that I think we've been... But we have already spent more than 30 billion euros... But you're still very low in terms of the... Well, 2.1% of our GDP. Yeah, but you're not... You very deliberately basically stood up against Trump

when he was basically saying to all the NATO allies, you've got to spend a lot more. That was when the kind of rifts, I think, started to emerge. But I think that 5%, it was an arbitrary figure, which was not based on data and facts. I mean, just to share with you this information, which is public, but I think that is important to table is that we agreed with NATO to spend 2.1% of our GDP on defense because with that amount of money, we would be able from Spain to have the capabilities needed to face the common challenges that we are facing as NATO.

So one thing is, okay, let us speak about the global challenges that we're facing in NATO. What are the capabilities that all allies should table? And afterwards, we will decide how much money you spend on defense. Because if you take my eight years since I'm in office, we have tripled the expedienter on defense. Of course, when it's related to our GDP, and of course we have deployed more than 3,000 soldiers. mainly in the eastern flank in NATO missions. So all in all, what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of arbitrariness when it comes to this 5% of our GDP.

You know, one year could be 5%, the other year could be 2%. And the other year could be 7%. Because at the end of the day, the real debate is capabilities, other capabilities that allies need to share in order to face the challenges that we face as NATO. How do you rebalance away from the US? I mean, let's say you want to stay allies with the US, but you also want to rebalance. You want a little bit more sovereignty, a little bit more independence.

But of course, Spain and Europe can't do everything on their own. You don't have complete independent capacity with AI, cloud computing, defense, security. So what is the strategy? How do you deal with China, with India? How do you balance your reliance on different external powers? So first of all, I think it is important to show that we are a reliable partner with all these regions that you mentioned. So I think that the path opened by the current president of the Commission,

Ursula von der Leyen, when it comes to Mercosur trade agreement, India trade agreement, and so on and so forth is the correct one. Second, I think that Europe, should deploy more its soft power, which means that we need also to be engaged in the global debates and not strengthen the European Union. When it comes to migration, when it comes to global warming, when it comes to financing for development,

when it comes to AI regulation or governance, these are the big debates that the Global South are waiting to be responded. And I think that it is a mistake from Europe to send the message that we believe that the international order is dead. Do you think Europe has lost his confidence? No, I think that we are suffering a lot of shocks from Ukraine and Russia, from the US, now from the Middle East, of course, China. And within the European Union, there's a clear shift towards the far right, which means more pro-nationalistic vision of the European Union, which is, I do believe, a weaker approach, because what we need is to unite Europe, not to fragment Europe. And in this regard, I do believe

that just to respond to your question, there's, of course, a need to reform our single market, which means not only the enlargement, but also we need to complete the saving and capital union market, energy union market, the digital union market. And these are the duties that we should deliver before the end of the mandate at the European level. And can you explain to the normal voter in Britain or in Spain? What does this mean? I mean, this sounds very unifying energy markets, capital unions. In practical terms, what does this mean for a citizen? It means, for instance, that since seven years ago, we have decided to become the green energy hub for the European Union. What is the problem?

That we are interconnected only by 5% of our total capacity. So we cannot provide competitive energy prices to the European Union because there's a lack of interconnections between the Abriene Peninsula and France. If we complete that interconnections, we will provide cheaper energy prices to European consumers. So these are the small things, but very important things, for the welfare of European citizens. And of course, for the, let's say, the strength of the European Union project. You know, since I'm in office, last month, for instance, thanks to this green transition, we've been able to reduce dramatically the electricity prices. So last month, for instance, the electricity prices were three times cheaper than

the ones in France, six times cheaper than Germany, and seven times cheaper than in Italy. So what I'm trying to say is that, of course, from Spain, we can provide cheaper electricity prices and cheaper energy for the rest of Europe. And this is solar, predominantly solar? It's solar, yes. And you're benefiting from your weather, your sunshine. Exactly. But at the end of the day, you know, when you see the, let's say the ideological speeches coming

from the far right, going against the green transition, going against migration. I think Spain is a very good example with facts that green transition is for the good of the middle class. And also migration, even though, of course, there's a lot of challenges behind migration, is also good for the economic growth of the country. Because at the end of the day, in the 21st century, the competition around the world, world is how do we attract talent? And I think that it's a big mistake from Western societies, just to say we're going to close our borders because we don't need more migration. Of course,

we need migration. The dilemma of Western societies is whether we open our economies and growth or whether we close our borders and shrinking. I want to talk about immigration and the way that you've handled the whole issue. And also the politics around it. So you've mentioned a couple of times the idea that there's a sort of movement to the far right across Europe. And, you know, we've got a similar situation in the UK with a labour government that's coming with a huge landslide and is now under real pressure and a lot of the pressure coming from populist right and populist left. What have you learned about how best to handle that? I mean, I know we shouldn't quote taxi drivers, but my taxi driver from

the airport last night said he was really impressed. By the way, you had taken an issue which the far right plays massively in their favor, immigration, and you have kind of flipped that, so that actually somebody like him in the center is thinking, I'm never going to vote for these people on the far right. I'm going to vote for this guy. Well, I think there are two dimensions when it comes to migration.

There's a moral dimension, which I think is very important not to forget. These are people that are looking for, new opportunities, and I think that there's a moral dimension of migration that we need to keep in mind, but there's also a pragmatic dimension of migration. We're suffering a winter demography within Western societies. And of course, that means that we need to fight against irregular migration. We have managed through cooperation and collaboration with countries of origin and transit it to reduce dramatically by 60% the irregular flows in Spain.

But at the same time, it's true that when you speak with business associations, they tell you we need talent, we need migration, and that is why it's so important to have regular path of migrations. So what you've done, which a lot of the centrist left of center and right-to-center governments across Europe have not done, And you don't go around saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, we understand all your concerns. You basically say to these people on the far right, you're xenophobic and your attitude's damage to the country.

They are going against the interest of our country. But again, you're quite a lonely voice on that within the European immigration debate. But there are nuances. Even across European governments, you find prime ministers from the central rights saying we're facing a winter demography and we need to open regular paths. for migration. And I think that one of the biggest mistake that Trump and current EU's administration is making is to close borders, they are trying to identify migration or migration with a crime

and all this violence. And it's the contrary, in the case of Spain, you know, migration represents 10% more or less of the total incomes of social security system. but at the same time only represent 1% of the total public spending. The challenge for governments, and in the case of Spain, you know, since we have a very decentralized system is in the hands of the regions and the hands of municipalities, the challenge is how do we integrate this migration? And the problem that we face in Spain, and I think that across Europe,

is that far right, they're just not sending the message that we are going to close borders, which is impossible, by the way. But at the same time, they are reducing dramatically budget related to integrating migration. Interestingly, a loss of the migration coming to Spain is coming from Latin America. And a lot of the migration coming to the United States is also coming from Latin America. But the way Trump is describing Latin American migrants sounds like a completely different group of people from the people you're describing. I mean, it's a similar population, but he says these people are crazy, rapists, violent. And when you speak with these Latinos in the United States, it's the contrary, you know.

They feel proud to be in the United States. They feel proud also about how they contribute to the economic growth and prosperity in the United States. Not only from Latin America, we have also a very important diaspora of Morocco in Spain, that they are contributing to the welfare of our society. And again, the challenge is how do we integrate this migration. How do you do that? We need to increase our budget when it comes to municipalities and regions. We need to also deploy social policies.

So you want to spend more on welcoming the migrants to Spain? Well, actually, what we are now in the process is to recognize the rights and regulate the more or less 500,000 migrants that are already living in Spain. But, you know, for a country of close to 50 million people, You know, we're talking about perhaps four points, five points of the total migrants that we have in Spain. It's not a big issue. I think that we have, of course, you know, the capacity to absorb and to integrate these migrants. Okay, President Sanchez, Rory, quick break and back for more.

To some, he is the revolutionary hero who restored China to its rightful place on the global stage. To others, he's a brutal despot. accused of presiding over more civilian deaths than either Stalin or Hitler. Mao Zedung has one of the most recognizable faces in the world, yet he started life as a rural boy in a muddy provincial village. A rebel son who hated his father, survived a 6,000 mile walk across China and rose to become a figure of titanic proportions.

From Empire, the Gollhanger World History Show, I'm Anita Arnan. And I'm William Durenpour. In this six-part series, we're joined by world-renowned expert Rana Mitter to explore the life of the father of communist China, Mao Zedong. We'll track his rise from a bookstore owner to a guerrilla commander and will witness his ruthless elimination to secure total power. We'll explore the greatest famine in human history, a catastrophe where Mao himself predicted that half of China may well.

have to die. And we'll descend into the dark experiment of the cultural revolution. A time when ancient temples were burnt, children denounced their parents, and a nation worshipped a mango as a sacred relic. And we'll play a clip from the series at the end of this episode for you to listen to. 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 developed. 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 Samaruk here from The Rest is here.

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 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 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. Can I ask you about your domestic political situation? Of course.

Because it's fascinating. You'd be privileged for eight years. You've had three budgets. You've had to rely quite a lot on the kind of European funds to keep some projects going. You've managed to do a lot of that. But looking from the outside, it's a very, very weird kind of coalition situation. Well, this is the coalition that Spaniards wanted. But how do you hold it together?

Well, I think that with a lot of capacity of negotiation. And I think that the Spanish way of doing things works. Define the Spanish way of doing things. Well, in 2025, we created more jobs than, for instance, the US economy. The economic growth in Spain represents 40% of the total economic growth of the Eurozone. I do believe that politics means just do it. You have to deliver on social policies on economic transformation and so on and so forth. And we have done so on the digital side, on the green.

transition. But when you're sitting with your coalition colleagues, you've got quite a wide spectrum. You've got a right-wing Catalonian over here. You've got a kind of hard left guy over here. You've got somebody very much in your image there. Well, at the end of the there's a common understanding. And I can tell you that being a minority coalition government has also made me better as prime minister, because that, not only because of my conviction, but also obligation to talk a lot with the rest of the regulatory groups. Well, perhaps for a year, but I can tell you that, you know, we've been able to pass a very important laws such as, you know, labor market reform, pension system reform,

with social peace. And by the way, it is true indeed. that back in 2017, you know, the year before I took over, Spain suffered the worst territorial and constitutional crisis in Catalonia. And nowadays in Catalonia, you know, we have a socialist president, so people in Catalonia recognize the effort that we have done over the last seven years in order to normalize the situation in Catalonia. And this is also a very important goal for this term to 100% normalize the political, and social situation in Catalonia.

What does that mean 100% normalize? So to materialize the amnesty law, to overcome all this terrible mess that previous administration left me when I took over back in 2018. And I think that we are in the process, but of course it has obliged me to take very difficult decisions that in the beginning,

Spaniards were more reluctant, but nowadays they realize it was worth for the coexistence of the Spanish territories and, of course, to strengthen democracy in Spain. Do you think Catalonia will be independent in your lifetime? No, I think that Catalonia, they just want to be respected, its identity, to be recognized, as well as the Basque Country. And I think that diversity, territorial diversity within Spain is not a problem, it's an asset for the good of Spain and for the good of our country. prosperity. This is why I think that now if you take the polls in Catalonia and in the Basque country and other territories that they have this very strong identity, they recognize how well

and how good this government works for their interest. And I think this is very important without breaking, of course, equal opportunities within territories and within citizens. There's a sense in which we all feel like we're becoming Spain. in 2017, that you are somehow ahead of us. I mean, so if you look at Britain, like Spain, we had basically a two-party system. And then suddenly we end up with our own far left. Our Podemos is basically the Green Party, which is now just won by election, very radical. Then we have Farage on the right, which feels a bit like Vox.

And we have a center-left prime minister who is stuck in a similar situation to you, but is taking a completely different approach, right? He had been told by his previous chief of staff, he needed to sound very tough on immigration, he needed to get the voters back from the far right. What's the lesson? I mean, if we're all becoming Spain in 2017, what's the lesson for Kirstama and the Labour government

on how you navigate this new world of five parties and far left and far rights and immigration? And with the independence debate is going on. From Spain, what we think is that we are, are urbanizing Spanish politics because this is the first time ever since we have democracy, 45 years ago, that we have a coalition government at the central level. Of course, we have a regional level of municipalities, but not at central level. So we are in the process of European ice Spanish politics.

And when it comes to the UK, I think that the framework perhaps is the problem. The framework is how do you navigate in this world without being part of a bigger political project? It doesn't matter if you are central left or center right prime minister. At the end of the day, the framework where you operate and you do politics is very tiny, no, very difficult to operate because there's, of course, a high public deficit, high public debt, low economy growth, of course, more defense obligations and security obligations, the debate of migration. I think that the UK needs to, with all due respect, the UK needs also to reflect on the decision taken with the Brexit. We're now in a position. As it happens, I don't think Nigel

Farage will become prime minister, but it's not impossible. So there's one of the two big drivers of the campaign to get Britain out of the European Union. And even as though you said earlier, a lot of Brits think it's been a complete catastrophe. How is it that one of the chief architects of it is now being talked of as a future Prime Minister? So I think what Rory is saying is you seem to be suggesting that Britain needs to be far more confident

about embracing its obvious economic and political future. Indeed. Yeah. I think that is a big question mark, British should answer. We need to keep that alliance. Brexit was a terrible loss not only for British, but also for the European Union.

We have also lost one of our major let's say political actors when it comes to international politics and welfare of the European Union as a whole. And middle

answers are not the correct one. You need bold primary colours. Exactly. I think it's important to open that debate, but once again, of course, it will polarize the citizens in Britain, and this is a very difficult debate to face. But again, it's a question of framework. How Britain could win more sovereignty. and in my opinion you don't win more sovereignty when you are out

of a bigger political project in our case, of course, the European Union. I mean, imagine Spain out of the European Union. It would be a disaster. You were the first Spanish Prime Minister I've met who hasn't raised Gibraltar in the first... Let's not. Let's not.

But by the way, you know, I think there were like three Labour governments in Gibraltar in Spain and in Britain. Thanks to, I think, generosity, responsibility, and of course thinking about people in Gibraltar and in Campo de Gibraltar, we managed to reach a very important agreement.

So I think that this was a very important milestone in order to scale up and strengthening our bilateral cooperation with the UK. But going back to your question, the problem is not about political orientation, is about the framework where politics in Britain operates after Brexit. And then I think it takes two to tango.

I mean, the European Union is going to have to be quite generous also in accommodating Britain if we try to get it back. So what we're afraid of is that eventually we win the referendum, we want to come back into the European Union, and then France says, no, no, no, no, no, if you come back this time, you must get much worse time. We have to punish you for your legal. No, I think, I think Europe has changed a lot over the last years.

I mean, we have, you know, we suffered a pandemic afterwards a war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, Gaza war, and nowadays Iran war. And what we see is a clear alignment in global politics from the European Union and the UK government. So, you know, I don't think, I don't see today any other path than more cooperation. And why not in the future? But this is my hope, with all due respect to have, again, the UK in the European Union. The sad thing is when we have an example of trying to make a cooperation, for example, on the defense funds, we didn't even succeed in something small like that. They got into a fight about, you know, Britain is not paying enough.

Britain's saying we're paying too much. in the end, the obvious thing, which was to tie Britain into the defence procurement, was not successful. At the end of the day, I'm sure that we will reach an agreement. But that's democracy. I mean, to have different opinions and then afterwards you negotiate and you reach an agreement. But perhaps we could do it faster. And with more generosity, more imagination from both sides, yeah? But I think that the destiny of the UK and the European Union is the same one. And I think that we need to do a political effort to.

join forces and see in the future how do we frame this relationship. Again, as a member of the European Union or not, in my view, is clear that in the interest of the UK... I mentioned at the start, and I don't want to get into the details because we can just go down rabbit holes, but there's these constant kind of allegations of corruption against some of your colleagues who are in jail, family members. First of all, is Spain done? Does Spain have a corruption problem? No. No, no, no.

We had it with the previous administration, unfortunately. But, you know, corruption politics free doesn't exist. I mean, it's important to keep in mind what exists is to have zero tolerance against corruption. And personally took those decisions in order to expel those cases of corruption when it comes to some of my members of the cabinet. it, no? One precisely. And when it comes to my family, you know, of course I will defend the innocence of my brother and my wife. But you know, politics nowadays is, you have this polarization. They have also the use of different associations that demand before courts, your family, because they're just

your family. And I hope that justice make justice. And the, and the truth. And the, the truth. truth will prevail. But this is also the cause that you have to pay sometimes nowadays doing politics. So you said in relation to some of your very close allies who helped you to take over the party, these guys that were traveling around with you in the car, that you regretted what had happened, that you had moments where you felt maybe that you should resign. I mean, what went wrong? What were the lessons there? What lessons have you learned from that? There's a side dimension of this political relationship.

You think that perhaps there are your friends, but at the end of the day you don't know them. You think that you know them, but you don't know them. They have a kind of high life. But what is, I think, important is to take decisions, not to just say, well,

it's not a case of corruption since the first moment, the very first moment, that police and of course the judges open and this corruption scandal, I took decisions proportionally to the case. And I think that is my responsibility. And also, on the other hand, to cooperate with international organizations such as the OECD in order to launch a state or a national plan against corruption. All in all, what I'm trying to say is that corruption, It's part, unfortunately, of politics. What makes the difference is how do you respond to those scandals?

And in my case, I took that responsibility, and I was 100% tough and proportional to those kind of scandals. My final question, I want to ask you about Gaza. Now, I know historically, Spain and Ireland have always been very, very defined as pro-Palestinian. But again, I wonder how you develop. up the position that you took. I think I'm right in saying, you're still the only European leader who's actually called what's happening in Gaza genocide? There's a lot of experts on international law, on humanitarian law that already stated as a genocide, what is happening

in Gaza. And is it, what is it about the, I know Ireland very, very well, and I kind of, I understand the emotional connection. What's the, what is it about Spain that makes it such a, pro-Palestinian, it's probably the most pro-Palestinian European country, I guess. Of course, we are empathetic with the Palestinian cause, but I would say that there's a broader picture to think about it, which is that Spain has suffered for many years terrorism. First of all, in the past country, in the beginning of our democracy, and afterwards, We suffer a very important terrorist attack from the jihadist during the Iraqi war. But the Israelis would say that they're victims of terrorism.

Absolutely, they are. But they are not taking the correct response to fight against terrorism. And this is, I think, the real debate. Because of course there is a security dimension when it comes to fight against terrorism. But there's also an ideological dimension on how to fight against terrorism within society, in this case, the Palestinian society. And I think that today, if you ask yourself, is Hamas stronger or weaker after four years of war or three years of war, I could tell you perhaps Hamas is stronger.

Why is that? Because there's a clear lack of political vision on how to fight against terrorism, or how to give and provide Palestine's a political horizon for their own future. And that means, of course, responding to the urgencies, such as humanitarian aid, stopping, you know, the war in the Gaza street, but also to give and provide a political horizon, which means a state of Palestine. Do you think Netanyahu is a war criminal? That is not my duty to respond it, but I think that Israel, today is more isolated internationally than before the war. And why is that? Because Prime Minister

Netanyahu took a very wrong decision when it comes to respond to this Hamas terrorist attack, which by the way, we of course condemn it since day one. My final question, how do we, you've talked a lot about Spain, you've talked a lot about the European Union and the UK. But I'd like you to, my final question, to think a little bit about the bigger global architecture and the global south, because there's a risk that Germany, Britain, talk about the rules-based international order, but the reality is we have all cut our developments spending a lot. There's less support going into the global south. There's not much support for the United Nations. Sometimes it feels as though we only care about state sovereignty when it's

Europe, and we don't really care. I agree. I think the problem or the challenge is how do we upgrade international order to the 21st century. And that means that Western societies, Western governments, we must reduce our representativeness in some of these multilateral institutions in order to have a more representative international order, which means we will need more African Union, we will mean more ASEAN, more global south in multilateral institutions. Are we ready to reduce that representativeness, are we ready to share global governance with other regions, with China, with India, with Brazil, and keeping at the same time what is working at international level, that is the challenge. So Britain and France have to give up their permanent membership of the

Security Council? Well, perhaps it's something that we need to think about it. How Europe is represented at the Security Council. How Asia, Africa, North America, South America is represented in the different institutions. And I think that this is a very difficult question to be answered, but I think that for the good of the world, we need to face it as Western governments and Western societies. That is why I do believe that is a big mistake for Europe to state that the international order is over. Because I think that the duty of Europe today, more than ever, is to be a force of good. And that means to be a force of cooperation, collaboration, to strengthen multilateral

system and, of course, strengthen the international order. They're also strengthened the economy. You were asking me about defense spending. But the first question that Europe should answer is how do we increase our competitiveness? How do we increase our productivity? How do we grow? And afterwards, we can talk about if we spend more defense, social security, social services, housing policy, and so on and so forth. And there, again, we have a very different view when it comes to far-right governments and, I would say, centrist government,

which means perhaps to enable our country's competitiveness means to speed the green transition. Renewables are quite competitive when it comes to, let's say, fossil fuels or even nuclear energy. And of course, what do we do within the European Union to scale up our digital market? And that means that we need to change and reform and upgrade our competition framework to forget about, you know, this is a Spaniard company, the other one is a German company or Spanish company, German company or French company, and perhaps we should talk about European companies. So there are many, many, many challenges for Europe and of course for the Western governments. But at the same time, the good news is that we know what we should do. The challenge is we do we have that political willingness to deliver, no? Thank you so much.

I mean, it's been a wonderful interview. We're very grateful for your time. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. It is a pleasure. Thank you. Okay, Roy, so there's President Sanchez. Quite an impressive guy.

I thought he was really brilliant. I think he's a very, very skillful politician. We didn't maybe talk enough about just some of the amazing maneuvers he's made. But he's also a great communicator of values in such important areas. I mean, just on the maneuvers, he's one of these people who is able to take a position and then reverse the decision, but somehow still not be overly punished by it. So, you know, in his case, you know, he said he was a man. not going to give amnesty to the Catalan leaders and he did. He wasn't going to, the implication

was he wasn't going to go into business, I think, with the far left and he did. He also did this very radical thing right at the beginning of his leadership where he effectively took on the entire party leadership, was thrown out of the party, started a grassroots movement, seized back control. So under the surface of this very articulate calm communicator is somebody who's able to make these amazing kind of political moves. Yeah, no, he's definitely a phenomenal politician. I was speaking to quite a few of the kind of diplomatic circle in Madrid ahead of the thing, and they're all saying that, you know, he is by a long stretch,

the most impressive Spanish politician there has been for some time. Now, the other thing that somebody said to me that was really interesting, we didn't get too much into the domestic Spanish politics, not at least because his position on the international stage is so interesting at the moment because he's absolutely calling out Trump in so many ways. One of them said to me something very interesting, he said, this is not a politician who's running a 51-49 strategy. He's running a 33, 33-33-33 strategy,

make sure you get the 34th, which is really interesting. And of course, the other thing that's happening in Spanish politics is that there's a lot of focus on the far right Vox. And he kind of plays into that. I mentioned a lot of the questions that we got. Some of them were in the field of why do you keep sort of, why does he keep labelling the conservative party as these kind of, you know, terribly dangerous, etc? It's because he's trying to ally them to the far right.

So they get a lot of, you get a lot of debate about the far right. But the other fascinating thing going on is there are all these parties to the left of him, including some that sit in his cabinet, plus a now very charismatic leader of this guy called Ruffian, which I think is a wonderful name for a politician in Catalonia, who's trying to put to an alliance to the left of Sanchez. Now I actually think in the end 34 33 33 strategy that might help him kind of consolidate a position in the center push the right off to the extremes, have the left off to him. Is that the strategy for Stama? I mean is that Stama putting the greens off to his left making the conservatives associated with reform and coming through the

middle? I think to some extent it is and it was it was very interesting you know when we were and we'll come on to his very clear advice for Kit Astaba, particularly on Brexit, but also this thing he kept saying, I mean, it was my words, but he kind of lent into it this idea about communicating in bold primary colours. I mean, everything, when you said, after the interview finished and you said, you know, he just, he's so clear, it's because he is speaking in bold primary colours all the time, even though, as you say, sometimes the colours change. When we pressed him on how do you deal with this kind of Frankenstein coalition with all these different places, over there and he had flipped it from I'm a pragmatic politician putting all this together to it makes me a better leader that I can deal with all these different shades of opinion. So his new primary colour, having fought so hard to get the coalition is coalition makes for good politics and that's why people like me as a leader. I mean, he's very smart. The best primary colour bit I thought was that he was able to take a radical position, very unashamed position on immigration.

connects it to growth which people really care about. And to values, anti-values. Exactly. So that thing that you very, very rarely hear a British politician say when he said, look, when you're talking about, particularly North African immigrants coming in, yes, they're great for our economy. They're contributing many, many times more

than they're receiving in welfare. But it's also a moral obligation. There's something about humans here. And I thought that also connected to him. his international position, his comfort, talking about ethics, international law, and framing things. And I think that's so important. I mean, I keep coming back to my obsession with Aristotle saying that the three things that matters for him are logos, pathos, and ethos, which are the, in my terms, the policy ideas, the communication, but also the morality. You know, what's the ethical values framework underpinning it?

And I thought he was very good at that. I mean, I did a bit of sort of ringing around and beforehand, and of course, my all-time favourite Spaniard, do you know who my all-time favourite Spaniard is? Miriam Gonzalez. Correct. Mrs. Nick Clegg is my all-time favourite Spaniard. And she will not be enjoying this conversation because she's not a fan. No, no. And in fact, I think maybe because of that, you said to me, Rory, I don't think you're going to like him as much as you think that you'll like him.

No, the reason I thought of that is because actually when push comes to shove Rory, you are basic. a conservative. He is, he is, he is, I'd say, to the left of me on all sorts of different issues. What I think Miriam doesn't like is his ability to project himself internationally is this very progressive voice and what have you. She said, for example, we didn't really get into this because I think it's too much down in the weeds of Spanish politics, but this point about only having three budgets in eight years is partly been allowed because he's very good at signing executive orders a bit like Trump. Right.

She would argue that he's actually been, you know, in relation to the judiciary, free media, that he's a lot more kind of old-fashioned sort of, you know, controlling politician that he gets credit for. And also, I think her other big point is that it's all very well to talk the talk about European dynamism and European modernising and making the economy more efficient. But in the Spanish context, is he really doing that other than through? this message about immigration. But listen, I found him really compelling. I think, and I think what I go for is what I agree with you. It's just that neither he nor his team

made any effort really to find out what sort of, they knew what they know what our interviews are like, but they weren't sort of trying to find out what we were most interested in what we were going to push on. We set out in the introduction all of the areas that you and I had kind of thought about getting into. And in all of them, I just, found him very, very clear. He's got that old-fashioned thing of, listen to a question, answer the question, make a point that might lead you to another question, and on the conversation goes, which I've found very, very refreshing. Just to go back to your point about whether this Sakeir Starmes strategy, interestingly, when Anthony Scaramucci and I did our show in Belfast,

and of course, Belfast is part of the United Kingdom, but they don't, they have very different politics, different parties, different debates, but they follow our politics very, very closely. What was really interesting when I did one of my show of hands things about who's going to win the next election, there was some support for saying it would be Kirstama, there was a lot of support for saying it will be a Labour leader that is not Kirstama. There was zero, I think zero for the idea that the Tory is going to win the next election, and there was pretty muted, pretty mutely the idea that there was going to be Farage. Now, I actually think that it is not impossible that

Keir Stama can win the next election in part because of what you just identified this 34, 333333. The only thing I'd say is I think our politics is even more volatile than Spanish politics right now and Keir Stama unfortunately from his and Labour's perspective

doesn't have this sense that Sanchez is giving his own people of kind of energy and dynamism direction and honestly Rory I had I only had you know I don't like quoting taxi drivers, had two taxis, two taxes, what you're doing in Spain, told them, the first one said, he is the best president we have ever had, and it's about to him we realized it. And the second guy, the second guy, I don't care what the polls say, he's going to win again. I think it's interesting also how there would have been a very cynical view, which he would

have got from some of his polling people, who might have said to him a few years ago, for God's sake, the only thing people care about is talking about cost of living. Don't go out there and champion immigration. There's a lot of people who do not want a lot of immigrants coming to Spain. Shut up about that. And listen, people aren't that interested in international affairs and taking some big idealistic position on not using Spanish bases is just going to piss off the Americans, lead to tariff wars, wreck your relationships with NATO, just shut up about it. But actually, I think it's an example of where taking a very clear, unambiguous primary color position helps. I mean, I don't want to get right back again into the Kirstama thing,

but one of the issues around his position, even if you're on your side and think it was the right thing to do, is it's not a very primary color's position. You know, it's a position where we are seeing American jets taking off from British airstrips all the time while he's also taking on Trump. Final thing I thought, as I'm sort of putting our interview together with the interviews we did with Kiriakos Mitsotakis in the Prime Minister of Greece and with Eddie Rama in Albania and Alvin Korti, Stubb, Jonas Garstura in Norway. These guys are oddly much more confident talking in a really interesting articulate way about international affairs than almost any of the

leading British politicians. And I don't know why that is. There's something very odd. These people feel incredibly confident internationally. Now, it may be a very important internationally. Now, it be that for some reason they're ending up with these people with much more international careers. So he obviously served in the European Commission. Mitsutakis has worked all over the world. Stubb was a diplomat. Exactly. And it's true, Janus Garstora was the executive director of the World Health Organization.

But there is something quite interesting about these senior European figures where they feel much more sort of global, internationally sophisticated, confident making claims about the of the world. I mean, Mark Carney would be another classic example of this. Yeah. But the Brits are not, I'm not hearing that from Yvette Cooper. I'm not hearing that from Kier-Stama. Am I right that this British politics feels a bit different? Whereas, I suspect Tony Blair would have been very comfortable talking like that being one of those kind of people. Look, I think Brexit is a big part of this. We'll come on to that. I think that Kirstama definitely feels instinctively that he, a big part of his job is foreign, affairs and foreign policy, particularly now with Ukraine and Iran and all this, and that's a big

part of his job. But you can see in his communication, he always feels he has to be somehow relating it to cost of living, your lives at home, and what have you. What I'm seeing with the European leaders is less of that need. And I think the other thing to understand is that, and this came through very much, particularly maybe with the interview with Alexander Stubb, president of Finland because he does foreign policy, but he doesn't do Europe. Now, there's still a mindset in Britain that thinks, well, Europe is foreign policy. But if you're one of these guys, no, it's not. It is part of your everyday kind of political, political life. I also think the other thing where you talked about their confidence in how they express themselves on these issues,

the other thing that I think links all of those people that you mentioned is how steadily they are becoming much, much more open. And, frank about what they now consider to be a fact, not an opinion, a fact. Brexit has been really bad for Europe and dreadful for the United Kingdom. And if the British government had any sense, they'd just kind of dive into the water, cold and say, we're going to fix this. He said it very much in those terms. Stubb, that is his view that, you know, he said the thing about seven years to leave, seven years to find out you've made a mistake, hopefully not seven years to get back in. And I think you asked him whether, you know,

but isn't there still the kind of French thing of wanting to rub these guys' noses in the dirt for a bit longer? Again, they all seem to be thinking, no, because the world is now too serious. And genuinely, we do miss the Brits. We do lose something by not having the Brits there. But listen, I completely agree with you. I said last week that just out of the around thing, I'd love to have heard a big speech about Churchill's view of the world. I'd love to have a big speech about how this is the moment for renewables to kind of have the next agenda. And likewise on this international stuff, I think we've got to stop pretending it's just a kind of little extension of domestic stuff. It's fundamental. The leadership required is fundamental. The issues that it arise for it peace, prosperity, energy, this international situation, I'm with you. I want to hear more from our politicians and not sort of embarrassed about it.

It's so interesting because when I entered Parliament 2010, I would have said that the general feeling when I went to EU council meetings, this kind of stuff, is that it was the British politicians who were much more confident making big global statements, talking about the Middle East, talking about international law, and a lot of the European politicians back 15, 20 years ago, felt much more domestic. Some of them, you know, Austrian politicians I can remember, felt almost like local councillors who'd somehow wandered into national politics. Now it's feeling very different. It now feels as though these European leaders, sometimes from quite small countries,

have a kind of sophistication, intelligence, intellectual ambition. We've got the Hungarian election coming up on April the 12th. That is going to be one of the most watched elections in the world in a relatively small European country. That's because Orban is such a kind of part of the MAGA thing. But no, I'm completely with you. And I think the other thing where I said to him at one point, do you think Europe's lost his confidence? And he said, no, but Europe does have to step up on the economic dynamism, does have to step up. And this is where Miriam would say he's just not doing it on policy terms.

But I still have this view. You know, when we interviewed Alis understood, and he's written this book, The Triangle of Power, Global West, Global East, Global South. And you said to him, look, maybe it should be a quadrangle of power. And I am absolutely convinced that the bottom of the quadrangle has to be. Europe. And interesting, again, even though when push comes to shove and they have to all sign or pass a treaty or get a law through their own parliament about allowing in Ukraine, Montenegro, Albania, etc. Will they all actually want to do that? I don't know, but he was very, very clear. More Europe, more countries in the European Union, including hopefully Ukraine and the UK, that's a proper vision.

That's a proper sense of something really big that we want to fight for. And I think that what's happened post-Brexit, particularly given that so many of our politicians, Johnson, Farage, the Tories, reform, still try to pretend that Brexit's been a really good thing for the country. We're having a kind of la-la-land debate. It's not a real debate about what's actually happening in our own country. It's very, very weird.

I've been really cheered up actually by, as I say, half a dozen of the European leaders we've spoken to recently. And Rory, what about Lamont-Clauer? I mean, if that's your working environment. I mean, I have seen rats, okay? I have seen rats in Downey Street, in the Elyze Palace, okay? I didn't see any rats scutting around in the world club. That was like being in an art gallery.

Beautiful. All right. Well, Alistair, thank you. See you very soon. See you soon. Take care. Bye. Hello, it's William Drupal again from Empire.

Here is a clip from our recent six-part series on Mousy Dong. The Greatly Forward was supposed to be, on its face, a kind of highly rationalised bureaucratic system of working out what China could produce and then, you know, working upwards so that you would produce, you know, enough food for everyone to eat and crops that could then be exported to increase China's GDP and everything would be great. But basically, because all the figures are being fiddled by officials who are too terrified to give the real information in case they get arrested or, you know, kind of fired from their jobs, they pass on statistics upwards saying, yes, it's all going great. using huge amounts of grain and products. And up, you know, in the cities and then, you know, beyond that to Beijing, the guys at the top are saying, oh, well, this is great. Well, in that case, we can export lots to the Soviet Union. So you have the kind of obscenity of out in the countryside, there isn't enough food for people to eat while the grain is being seized and exported from the country to bring in money for the state. This is very much a rural phenomenon, and that's

significant because, of course, shortly before this, the system which still exists today was started up in China of a sort of Soviet-style internal passport system, it was called the Hukho or a household registration scheme. And it basically means that you can't just simply wander around wherever you want in China. You have to sort of have it internal permission. So people in the cities were no longer really kind of interacting that much with the countryside. They're kind of almost separated off. And while people in the cities, you know, found there was a certain amount of deprivation. The devastation was really out in the countryside where essentially it turned into mass starvation about 1959, 1960, 61, it became clear in the countryside. There simply wasn't

enough food to go around. But when the news came through to the top leadership, including Mao, he basically chose to ignore it. He didn't exactly deny it, but he basically said, well, you know, we need to keep going. And he said something like, if things are not going so well, then let's just not say anything about it and keep going. And that led to one of the great confrontations of that period, which is the conference, Communist Party top-level conference held at Lushan. We hope you enjoyed that clip to listen to the full series Search Empire World History. wherever you get your podcast.