The Rest Is Politics - 526. Trump's Orwellian Maths and the King's Special Relationship Mission

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

Is the so-called ‘special relationship’ between America and Britain already broken, and is it even worth saving? How can the UK and Europe achieve independence from the US on defence, tech and nuclear? Is Trump's comical mathematical illiteracy actually a serious threat to democracy? Join Rory and Alastair as they answer all these questions and more. __________ Go deeper into the world of The Rest Is Politics by signing up for our free newsletter HERE, featuring exclusive interviews, analysis and weekend reads from Alastair and Rory. 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, exclusive newsletters, discounted book prices, and a private chatroom on Discord. The Rest Is Politics is powered by Fuse Energy. Stop overpaying for energy. Switch at https://fuseenergy.com/politics and get a free TRIP+ subscription. __________ Instagram: @restispolitics Twitter: @restispolitics Email: [e-mail] __________ Social Producer: Emma Jackson Video Editor: Josh Smith, Bruno Di Castri Assistant Producer: Daisy Alston-Horne Producer: Evan Green Exec Producer: Chris Sawyer General Manager: Tom Whiter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thanks for listening to The Restis Politics. To support the podcast, listen without the adverts and get early access to episodes and live show tickets, go to the rest is politics.com. That's the rest is politics.com. Trump's vanity and narcissism is such that he sees himself as the king. He wants to be an emperor. He wants to be an unelected monarch. And the question now is, is it broken? The continual humiliations and insults from Trump.

Does this mean that Britain now needs to think about a radically different grand strategy for the next 20th? is. Trust has broken down because of the way that Trump has conducted himself. The whole world is locked in a kind of abusive marriage where the Trump administration is saying to everybody else, you can't afford to leave me. The most powerful man in the world can't count, can't add up, doesn't know what percentage is. Why have we got somebody so stupid as president and why do we treat them as normal? This episode is brought to you by Fuse Energy. Energy policy rarely stays in Westminster for long, usually arise for the bill. And from the 1st of April, 75% of renewables obligation costs will come off electricity bills and move into general taxation.

So if bills are meant to fall from April, why would anyone bother switching? Because policy sets the floor. The saving itself is automatic. What suppliers offer beyond that isn't, and that's where real competition operates. Fuse goes beyond the mandated saving. Customers who switch save around an additional £200 on average. In the Fuse Energy app, you can see exactly what you're using and what it costs, with 24-7 support if you need it. Listeners to the show will also receive a free Trip Plus subscription when they switch. Get more than just lower rates.

Switch today at fuseenergy.com slash politics using the code politics and save around £200 on your bills. Visit fuseenergy.com for full details and terms and conditions. This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the Power Move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real Power Move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence. And accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new Power Move.

Welcome to the rest of the politics with me, Rory Stewart. And with me, Alistair Campbell. So with the king in the United States, we're going to be talking about his role in diplomacy. We're going to talk about Donald Trump and expectations for the visit. We're going to talk about what that says about the broader relationship between the UK. A special relationship. So called between the UK and the US. We're going to talk a lot about the Balkans because we did a very interesting interview with President of Serbia this week.

And we're going to get into broader picture in that region, which is, I think we don't talk about enough. And we're going to talk a little bit about what's happening inside Labor on a day when Gierstamber yet again is facing a few travails. I heard a wonderful expression on my German podcast this morning, about King Charles. He said he's a diplomatish of Wunderwaffe. Oh, what's that mean? It means a diplomatic wonder weapon. Oh, wonder weapon. So there you go.

Let me start you off then on the King's Visit. So right at the heart of this is this whole question of this thing called the special relationship, which was put together almost exactly 80 years ago, this friend. raised by Winston Churchill. And it defined a world that was an anomaly. Emerged really in the Second World War through the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill. And after the Second World War, was a big UK bet that they could be the junior partner in a US liberal order. And broadly speaking, America leading the world and us doing what we were told would work because there'd be free trade, there'd be a clear financial system, there'd be a rules,

base international order, there'd be United Nations. And it's not always been easy. And there have been moments where it's been a bit scratchy. So I was reminded not just of the fact that Harrow Wilson refused to go into the Vietnam War, but Edward Heath refused to allow the US to use British bases or overflight for the Yom Kippur War. There were controversies even in 1986, Libya bombing, where other European states refused to allow the US to use bases or overflight, we did. And then, of course, there was the relationship that you saw with Blair and Bush. But ultimately, it sort of have worked as a bet for Britain. We diminished in size. We became a smaller and smaller economy, and we somehow managed to keep a form of global power going through this US relationship.

And the question now is, is it broken? The threats on Greenland, the tariffs, the continual humiliations and insults from Trump, does this mean that Britain now needs to think about a radically different grand strategy for the next 20 years? Over you. Yeah, and also, it wasn't just the fact of the special relationship. The other pillar was our leadership role. in Europe. So the problem is that over the last decade, there's a risk that we lose both. And that's why I think at the start of Trump's second term, Kirsten was right to try to build some kind of relationship. But he's discovered, as does everybody who crosses Trump, that unless you, when Trump says jump, you just say how high, then you fall out. The reason why I think

Der Spiegel calls Charles a diplomatish of Wunderwaffe, wonder weapon, is because, Because Trump's vanity and narcissism is such that he doesn't really see Kierstarm as his opposite number because he sees himself as the king. He wants to be an emperor. He wants to be an unelected monarch. He behaves like one. He surrounds himself by sycophants in the way that... A medieval monarch would.

A medieval monarch would. Yes. Says Rory Stewart, lest I say that any bollocks surrounds himself with sycophants amongst two Rory Stewart might be. I think contemporary monarchs may be surrounded. by Sikfence, but given that they're not shaping all foreign policy. Also, and also, I think to be fair to your friend, the King, I think he does actually quite like to occasionally meet people who challenge his views and what have you.

But the risk of them, I mean, sorry, just on this King thing, I think it's a really, you know, when we're trying to understand how Trump makes decisions in foreign policy, you know, we've tried different types of analysis. We've had the very strong one, I think, which you and Michael Wolf were pushing, which is the reality TV star. There is the view which has often. sold by the mooch, which is he's fundamentally either interest in headlines or making money. But I think another very powerful way of seeing him is to see it really as a court.

And to, I mean, I've been reading recently in a very geeky way about Elizabeth's the first dealing with the Spanish and the Netherlands in the late 1500s. And you get a very Trumpian sense. I mean, she will promise troops and then she'll pull them out. She'll insist they pay for the troops, which are her own troops. You know, you've got to pay for my basis, but then I'm going to reserve the right to move them off somewhere else. And why does this happen? Well, fundamentally, because she's a queen, right?

And Trump is behaving like that. And a lot of the things that we're going to get on to with Serbia, with bribing, with corruption, comes out of the nature of this court. I did. Talking of core, I did the podcast, the Court of History the other day with Sidney Blumenthal. He used to work for the Clintons and a guy called Sean Valence. And it was interesting that they were essentially, it's the court of history, but they essentially were. seeing Trump in those terms. And Sean actually made the point that within the White House now, in terms of any history, there are the occasional picture of a Lincoln or an FDR, but essentially

all of the historical stuff in there now is about Trump. And he actually said that Trump's view of history is that history is what has preceded his arrival, and it's all been a preparation for that. And that's how he thinks. And so what King Charles has to do, and it's going to be a very tricky thing, because if you remember when Trump came over here when the Queen was still alive, I think I'm right. He's the only person I ever saw walking in front of the Queen. You know, he just thought, I'm more important. I'll walk in front of.

Are these troops here from me? I'll go and say hello to them. There will be something unexpected. I was talking to somebody who kind of works in the palace planning stuff. He said, you know, part of their planning has been there will be something unexpected. What do we do? And the answer is stay calm and carry on, basically. It's interesting how they're not filming everything.

There's going to be a lot of kind of grainy color and black and white photograph for the history books. His encounters with Trump are not all on camera. They're obviously worried Trump will say something. And it will be difficult. Let's just imagine if Trump does go off on one about London, about Sadiq Khan, about Kirstama, about Iran. It does put your friend the King in a difficult position because he can't just stand there if Britain and the government of Britain is being insulted. Now, I don't think Trump will do it, but you can't rule it out. I think the key thing is going to be Charles's speech to Congress, because that will be a text.

And what we hear, by the time a lot of people listen to this, it will already have happened. But what we hear is that he is going to emphasize, yes, cooperation, yes, reconciliation, yes, there have been times where we've fallen out. But ultimately, international law, alliances, democracy. So I really, really, really hope he pushes hard on the values buttons, because I think that is what the world is. needs to hear. Absolutely. I wonder though, and that seems very good. I mean, in the immediate term, it's almost, I guess, what you would have advised the king to do, talk about international alliances, talk about democracy. But the deeper issue is raised by Serbia, which we're going to get

into a little bit later in this program, which is the Serbia option of dealing with Trump, and the Gulf option and the Balkan option is very, very transactional, pretty close to long. robbing, bribing contracts to try to get his attention and access. That's one option. Option two is... I can't see the king doing that. No. Option two for Britain.

I'm trying to think about British options. Can Britain behave like a Gulf country or a Balkan country? Probably not, because we may not have as much to offer, and our political culture wouldn't allow us to behave that. Option two is the kind of Macron option, which is to make great statements and claims about a new world order, but it's not quite clear whether it ever gets delivered. I mean, you can imagine Macron's still making those speeches in 2035 and not much has changed.

Option three is that you really begin to do the serious work and working out how Britain gets lockstep with Europe and begins to work out how it becomes more independent, more independent on critical minerals, AI, nuclear, etc. It really does the work. But I fear the British option, default British option, is to basically do nothing, take that. speech at Congress literally and pretend it's all going to be fine. Pretend that, you know, because it's too costly, too risky, too expensive to work out how on earth we're going to work without Trident and cloud computing. Let's just keep our head down. Hope Trump's an anomaly.

Lean into the idea that America's always been our friends and somehow it's all going to be fine. Yeah, well, that would not work, I don't think. That also depends on whether we think that post-Trump America reverts to some kind of normality. And I'm not convinced that it does, even with the Democrats, frankly. The couple of leaders you didn't mention there who I think are really interesting to watch at the moment one is Karni and Canada is now amongst the many moves they made

now announcing their own sovereign wealth fund they are talking about getting a lot closer to Europe and Mertz yesterday I don't know if you saw it I sent you I'm going to give you, drummed my favourite German word that I learnt last month planlosikite Oh my gosh thank I'm planlessness That's what Mertz has said about what's happening in Iran Merz did a very very critical intervention yesterday

It basically said Iran has been underestimated. They're humiliating Trump. In fact, they're humiliating an entire country and is happening because they went into this without a clear strategy. I understand that for a second. That's really interesting because, obviously, Germany, as usual, are the heart of a lot of this conversation because they're the people with the money and they're the people who would finance. Less than they had. And also, he's really worried about the effect of the Iran war on the German economy.

But given that immediately after the Iran war, he was seemed to be a bit sort of, of where international law doesn't really matter. I'm going out to see Trump. I'm sitting next to him. And Trump starts insulting the Spanish leader because he's not supporting the Iran war and Mets doesn't really intervene. So the first few days, the Iran war, Mets took quite a lot of political cost, deciding not to be very critical of the Iran war and to sort of gently imply. Do you know why, I think? Because Israel was involved. And it's so difficult for German leaders to criticize Israel. And it's interesting how this was very much focused on the United States, what he was saying. And why politically, once you've taken the cost of not really coming, you know, not finding your great Spanish prime minister moment, why then two months later come out and make the critical statements? I think because he was hoping that if the world pressed in a sort of option of one, two, three kind of way, that something might come of it.

What's happened over two months is Trump has listened to nobody, essentially, apart from him. and his sycophans. And I think what Mertz was reflecting. And it was interesting how he did it. He did it in a Q&A with schoolchildren. And it was very, very strong. So I think he's just decided, this is a sort of tipping point thing.

Macron's definitely there. Macron did a briefing on to journalists the other day where he was basically saying, we've got to kind of move on from America. I think Carney was there ahead of all of them. I think you're right that there's a danger that the UK just thinks we can kind of muddle through. And the goal of this visit of the King,

is to improve the relationship. So in a way, what the king and possibly the government will want out of this is at the end of the four days, people to say, well, he went, and things seemed better and Trump behaved. But we won't be back to normal, because it's not that long ago that Trump had a state visit here and said how much he loved the UK, et cetera, you'll say all that again.

But the fundamentals haven't changed. And your point about tech, nuclear, these are massive issues that we have to get on top of. And I know in Q&A, in question time, we're going to talk about some of the tech issues, but I still worry post Peter Kyle that I sort of feel that AI is almost vanishing from our debate. Can I just come back to this European point and the Kani Kani Mats. Firstly, it's not an easy decision. I want to give good credit to why, you know, Starmar and Whitehall may sometimes look like they're bearing the heads in the sand.

Well, just doing that, look at the price Kira's paid over Iran. Just look at the very simple thing of saying, this is not our war, we don't support what's been. Just look at the consequences of that in terms of rhetoric. And also this extraordinary statement, which is worth talking about a little bit, which is that Elbridge Colby has prepared a position paper suggesting that the US may no longer support the UK and its attempt to hold on to its sovereign territory in the Falkland Islands and instead be prepared for media in Argentina to have a public. And do you know what I predicted to be the next chapter in that story? that will be the next time that Hexeth and Colby go on about how the once great British military.

In other words, they're picking on something where they can say, well, we know that this will annoy the Brits. But actually, they're below the line. They're basically saying, we wouldn't be able to do it without us anyway. So I thought that was a very deliberate, very provocative, very aggressive move. They undermine themselves by tying it in with the idea that Spain should be kicked out of NATO, which can't be done. Because if you kick Spain out of NATO, NATO's done. Yeah. Now, you could argue, we've talked about this before, you could argue NATO's done already.

Interestingly, again, from the briefing that I picked up, Charles is going to talk about the importance of NATO. And again, I hope he does. Let me just come back to this thing. So I think there are two moves. There's the bury the head and the sand move. And as you said, there's a cost. And it's not just rhetorically being bullied and humiliated by Trump. It's that we don't really know how to think about having a nuclear deterrent, which isn't basically.

being covered by the Americans. We don't really remotely know how we could build up our own large language model like a chat GBT or Claude. We've no idea really what we would do without American cloud computing or the dollar or five eyes. In other words, we've spent 80 years becoming completely dependent. We're like, I sometimes think we're sort of potentially the whole world is locked in a kind of abusive marriage where essentially the Trump administration is saying to everybody else, you can't afford to leave me. Yeah. You know, yeah, okay, you might complain and I might humiliate you and beat you up, but the fact is you'd never be able to make it on your own. Yeah. Too expensive, too complicated. Yeah. That's because we believed we had a relationship of trust

and that trust has broken down. Largely, I would argue, because of the way that Trump has conducted himself. And it turned out they weren't really joint bank. accounts. We didn't really have joint ownership of the house. And there was certainly no pre-lup. Yeah, there was certainly no pre-no. So painful, horrible, you can see why people want to bury their head in the sands. And my experience in government, you're a bit more optimistic about government, but my experience in government is generally change is difficult. And if the whole institutions, our secrets, our intelligence service, our foreign office, our army, has spent 80 years built around the assumption that they're just junior partners of the United States. Changing that,

requires a complete revolution at the top of the civil service top government. Let's now go down the other option. Let's imagine that we really concluded that it's not sensible anymore to put all our eggs in the American basket. That doesn't mean getting a boat with China. It doesn't mean we'll ever be entirely independent. There will still be many things will have to depend on the US for, and in many ways we'll share things with them. But we need to hedge. And that brings us to our Stubb square and how do we develop this European, Canadian, British square. The pessimistic view, which would be the Elbridge Colby view and the view from the Republicans, is they'll never get it together. You know, my various wives may claim they're going to leave the house, but the fact is

the Germans are never going to fund it. The French are going to be selfish and just insist all industrial policies done in France. The Canadians are going to talk a great game, but they're not really going to get it close to Europe, and Britain has too many internal political problems, and it doesn't have the money to do it. Do you think there is a world in which Germany, France, UK, Canada can really begin to pull up? And what would be those steps and what would METS have to do and what would Macron have to do and what would Stama have to do to actually rebalance? Well, I honestly do think that it means us getting back into European Union fully fledged. I've come to the view that the sort of single market customs union is nice, but it's not going to take you there.

I worry, as you know, as you call him my friend Emmanuel Macron, but I do worry that he doesn't necessarily share this vision. I worry, we'll talk about this, maybe when we talk about Vucchich, I worry that actually Macron is the one who is most reluctant on enlargement. I'm actually with Zelensky and Vucic, and in a sense, if we're going to make Europe big, make it big. and if that means changing some of the rules, then see whether that can be done. So just tell me more about Macron, because that's very interesting.

So not keen on big enlargement and also a little bit hesitant on creating this fourth corner. I mean, how does it work? What's going on Macron's head? Well, he has. You mentioned the nuclear stuff. France is now the – if people understand that our nuclear deterrent is very wrapped up in America, militarily, technically, etc. France literally has the only independent nuclear deterrent in Europe.

That gives them an extra strength. I think he sees that as a strength that should be exploited. But I think this is about politics. I think they're genuinely worried about their politics and the impact of enlargement. So that he would think it's just politically impossible. It would be too unpopular. It would help repent too much. Yeah, so I think you talk to talk, but you don't necessarily...

In the end, the member states have got to give the leadership on enlargement. You know, the commission can do all the stuff, and they can go through chapter by chapter, as they do. Montenegro, for example, is making huge progress at the moment. But the big step, I think we're talking about big steps. Colby, you're right, is going to sit there thinking these guys aren't going to make the big moves. I think the only big move is actually for people to say this requires more Europe, not less. It requires, absolutely requires us to be back in there. Germany? I think the Germans would be more pragmatic about it. I think they would. And does Matt's got a sort of big, grand strategic view, do you think? Well, I don't know, but I think,

And I thought, this is the reason I think it was so interesting what he did yesterday. The big grand strategic view used to be we are absolutely all in with America. That is changing. That is clearly changing. Even from someone who's on the right. Absolutely. Yeah. And it would have been more sympathetic, actually, because I don't believe.

The left in German politics did have a tradition of being a bit anti-American sometimes, right? Still there. Yeah. I don't believe Angela Merkel would have said what Matt said yesterday. So that's changing. But I think what I worry about from Labor's perspective is that we're doing this kind of incremental change. I think the French and Germans are doing their equivalent of it. And I actually think what we need, you know, we talked to your friend Gerald Knauss about John Monet a lot. We kind of,

I think we need another Monet to come along and say, look, this is not big enough what we're thinking at the moment. It's interesting. We'll maybe take a break and then come back to Vuchich, but the transition into Vucchich is one of the things that he was saying is a security argument. He was essentially saying Europe faces two paths. And he was, almost blackmailing and threatening. He was saying, you know, either the US basically scoops up the lock of Eastern Europe and the Balkans and creates its own transactional relationships with them dividing Eastern Europe from Western Europe. Or Europe reaches out, brings in these countries. And as Zelensky said, it's a security argument. And he was adding in Norway, Turkey, UK, Ukraine.

Roy, if we'll go to the break, you know, I've been utterly obsessed about Trump and percentages. Oh, yes. And we now have to confront this because it is more serious than people. thing. So look, if I get my spectacles like that, okay, I'm holding with that. What happens if I take my finger and thumb away? Oh, they drop onto the table. Correct. They've dropped onto the table, right. That is a basic fact that we all accept. We understand gravity. Because of Trump and Putin and polarization, there's nothing that is accepted universally as truth, apart from science and maths. Yeah. Okay. What is two plus two? Four. What is three times three? Nine. If you go into a shop and buy something for 40 pence and you give a pound, what does the shop people give you back?

And what are the various formulations that could be in? I feel like I'm doing my kids. Yes, exactly. Exactly. But there's not a single person listening to this, including the least educated, you don't understand that basic maths. I'm worried you're going to ask for a question. I don't know the answer.

So you're going to be like, what's 73 times 52? I've not going to do that. I've got some more complicated what's coming. If you see a shop and it says 50% off everything. Yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

And you go in, and before you bought a mug in there that cost 10 pounds. Yeah, five pounds now. Correct. Yeah. 50% of Ted is five pounds. Five pens comes off. So if something's 100% off.

Oh yeah? It would be free. Okay. If it was 200% off. Ah, then the shopkeeper would have to give me money maybe? Correct. Yeah. You do really, really, really well.

So you can't have more than 100% drop. Ah. Okay? Yeah. Impossible. Yeah. So why does Donald? Trump constantly say that he's cut drug prices by variously 300%, 400%, 500%, and

1,200% and 1200%. And why is that not covered anywhere in the world's media? It's amazing. What do we think he means? Well, I'm going to explain what he means because the other Robert Kennedy Jr. explained what he meant. He was asked by Elizabeth Warren at a Senate hearing, what was the difference of the cost of a drug on Trump RX, which is their website, and the price at costo. Kennedy didn't answer the question, but he said this, President Trump has a different way of calculating percentages. There are two ways of calculating percentages.

That's very good. Okay. He then says this, wait a minute. My nine-year-old does that. Daddy, there are two ways of doing the maths problem. There's my way and everyone else. Well, there might be, but they goes on to say, if you have a $600 drug and it goes to $10, that's a 600% reduction. Is it? No, it's not.

No, it's 98.33%. Correct. Because 600 minus 10 is 590. The next day in the Oval Office, Kennedy reports to Trump on his encounter with Warren, with the Wells Media there. He says she was ridiculing President Trump

for his math. Math, I hate that, which she was, saying you can't reduce something by 600%. So Kennedy, thinking he's smart, tries to show her wrong. He said if a drug went from one, $700 to $600, that's a 600% rise.

Wow. Is it? No, it's six times. It's gone up six times. Yes, but that is a 500% rise. Right. Because the increase, 60 minus 100 is 500. You divide the increase by the original price.

500 divided by 100 is 5. To convert the percentage five times 100 equals 500%. So he's trying to say it's a 500% rise and therefore Trump might think it's a 600% reduction. He might think whatever he thinks. But then we have. Then we have. It's actually an 83% rise. 3.3% change.

Okay. Now, Trump then steps in. Kennedy's been blowing so much smoke up his backside that he's now smiling and saying, yeah. He said, I take a lot of heat. I would say 500, 600, 600, 600, 700. We also say sometimes 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. People understand that better. There's two ways of calculating it, but either way, it doesn't make any difference,

whether it's 60, 70 or 80. Nobody's ever heard of it. But it's also 500, 600, 600, 700, 700, 700, depending on the way you want to look at it, the way you word the calculation, it's either way, but Bobby, you're doing a fantastic job. Brilliant.

It is utterly, it's the most brain dead. It's just nonsense. You can't, you can't, and then nobody, can you imagine if Joe Biden had said that? Yeah. Can you imagine if Keir Stama said that? Can you imagine if you and I said it on the podcast?

I know. People get crossed on it. The 50% is the same as 500%. Yeah. They would think we'd lost it. Yeah. So why have we got somebody so stupid as president and why do we treat them as normal? Yeah, it's a good question.

It's a fundamental question. I think he, I think what he's doing is just, he just thinks big numbers are better. So he'll just produce a bigger number. I don't think it's really mass. I think what he's trying to say is, well, you know, I've reduced it a lot and, you know, 60% doesn't sound like very much. But one, he hasn't reduced it a lot. So why don't I say 600%? And that doesn't sound like very much.

So why don't I say 1,200%? That sounds a bit bigger. But, Rory, you're normalizing the abnormal. And the reason why I think this is serious, I think it's right out of the nothing is true, anything is possible playbook. This is about me. And it's also deliberately dumbing down his country. It's a different type of thing, isn't it? It's total sort of absurd bullshit.

I mean, Putin wouldn't do that. Because traditional dictators, nothing's true, everything's possible, are trying to say things which might be plausible. I mean, they're lies, but they might be plausible. Special military operation. This guy has gone into a different realm. No, I genuinely think he doesn't know the difference. These Iran negotiations with Iranians, right? The Iranian foreign minister is a former nuclear engineer, right?

He sends in Vance and Witkoff. Vance, who, by the way, stands there nodding as Trump comes up with this numerical bullshit. Well, but this is an opportunity for the Iranians. Maybe they can say, we're not reducing our nuclear stock bar by 10%. Well, you're not taking it seriously. Do you not see that as a serious point that the most powerful man in the world Can't count. Can't count, can't add up, doesn't know what percentage is. I think all of it's terrifying. It's horrifying. It's horrifying. It doesn't horrify me as much as what's about it happened to Britain due to our complete inability to restructure our international relations. But yes, I agree. Trump is horrified.

Well, I don't think you've taken it as serious enough. No, so the reason I think it's really serious, because I think this is Orwellian. I think it's him essentially saying, whatever comes from my mouth is the truth, even if it is not born out by reality. And I think if we can't all agree on what a fact is, I don't know how you have a democracy. Yeah. And that'll be true right at the heart of any democracy, that the idea of truth, accountability, transparency, all these jargon words are bound up because you can't vote for someone unless you can trust them to deliver what they say they can deliver and you can't hold them accountable unless you have some idea of what the truth of what they're doing is. So once you create a world in which a leader can say black is white, Orwellian, you know, red is blue, There is no way of holding anyone accountable. Yeah. And that's where he wants to be.

Okay, let's take a break and then come back and talk about the Balkans and a little bit about labour. This episode is sponsored by Starling, the bank that helps you organise your money, build great habits and stay in control of your spending. Plenty of us have strong opinions on how to run the country, but knowing how to manage your own day to day can be more of a challenge, especially when it comes to being good with money. That kind of self-assured self-governance could start with just checking your balance daily. And yes, it can feel like opening the books at the Treasury, but eventually you'll feel like the Chancellor of your own Idelex checker. Of course you'll want to examine the data around your balance for that. There are tools like Starlings' spending intelligence.

It's an AI-powered search bar within Starling current accounts where you can ask a question about your spending habits and get an instant answer in app. Helps deepen your knowledge and make more informed money decisions. A bit like having a select committee in your wallet. Search Starling Bank to find out more. Good with money. Starts here. Hi everybody. It's Dominic Samaruk here from The Rest is History. Now some of you may have heard me on your show. The Rest is Politics when Rory was away and I was filling in and enjoying Alistair Campbell's tremendous banter. And I'm back to tell you about our new series on the rest is 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're 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, 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. Want to go electric without sacrificing fun? That's the Volkswagen ID4. All electric and thoughtfully designed to elevate your modern lifestyle. The Volkswagen ID4 is fun to drive with instant acceleration that makes city streets feel like open roads, plus a refined interior with innovative technology always at your fingertips. The all-electric ID4, you deserve more fun. Visit vw.ca to learn more. SUVW, German engineered for all. Welcome back to the rest of politics with me, Alice Campbell. I'm with me, Rory Stewart.

So Rory, I think of all the interviews we've done, I'm not sure any of them, with the possible exception of Al Shara, have got quite as much publicity as particularly the Balkans as the interview that we did last week with President Voucher. But before we go into that, why don't you? We got a bit of feedback from people saying, you know, we, I thought it was one of our most interesting interviews, but people saying we don't know much about this part of the world, kind of why does it matter? So tell people, before we get any further, why it matters as much as it does. Well, I think that the first reason it matters is that this is where the big European war was, right in the very heart of Europe. So if you look at a map, Serbia is sitting there in the middle

of the European Union, with European Union countries all the way around. And that was where in the early 90s, Yugoslavia broke, and a war particularly broke out between initially Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnian Muslims with these horrifying genocides, millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of people killed Sarajevo under siege, paramilitaries, war criminals, Maladich, Karajic. And then, in 99, the Serbs mounted an operation, which was an operation of ethnic cleansing, even potentially genocide against the Kosovo-Albanian population. So that's an autonomous region in southern Serbia, which meant a lot to Serbian nationalists because it was the place where in the late Middle Ages,

they'd fought a great heroic battle against the Ottomans, but was, by 1999, majority dominated by Kosovo-Albanian Muslims. And that then led to the second intervention. First intervention was everybody getting involved in intervention in Bosnia, stopping the war, stopping the killing in Sarajevo in the mid-90s, and the second intervention, which you were very involved in, was this intervention in 99, which eventually ended up with Milosevic, which is troops, the Serbian leaders troops being pushed back, Kosova, achieving autonomy,

and then eventually being recognized as an independent state by many countries, but not, for example, by, certainly not by Serbia, but not even by places like Spain. I think there are five countries which don't recognize Kosovo inside the EU. And Vuchich matters because Serbia was supposed to be part of a story which to some extent Croatia is part of, which is how this horror, this civil war, this ethnic cleansing was fixed by joining the European Union. Borders disappear. You're integrated into a whole new political structure. And Serbia was meant to be on that journey. It hasn't happened. And instead of which, it's ended up with an Orban-adjacent, authoritarian ruler, who we interviewed. Over to you. Yeah, just to get you the background. So Yugoslavia was made up of Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Macedonia. So two of those have joined the European Union, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovenia. and Montenegro is getting closer and closer and closer.

And you get the feeling that the Serbs are not, they're really not happy. Boutche's was clear. He's not happy about Montenegro getting in ahead of Serbia. So what followed from Yugoslavia was what was called Fry, the Federal Republic of Serbia, of Yugoslavia, which was the Union of State of Serbia, Montenegro. Montenegro then becomes independence. You've got Serbia. I found it fascinating to see him.

I've seen him a few times in the past. He and I were opposite numbers during the Kosovo, I thought he'd have mellowed a bit in relation to Kosovo, but I don't think he has at all. Whether that was just for a very nationalistic domestic audience, I don't know. The main story that seems to have appeared in certain media was when he said to me, some of us have principles, Alistair, which was seen as a sort of direct hit as the legality of what we did. We had an interesting series of meetings with bits of staff, and they were very much insisting that he doesn't control the media.

My goodness, the coverage demonstrates just how much influence he has over certain really key bits. Once they decided they were briefing out, some of us have principals out of state. It was everywhere. I mean, tell us a little bit about how much everywhere it was. Well, I have a friend who was there who was just sending me as they were landing all the stuff that was being covered. And there were dozens, even just the fact of us being there. If you remember, I posted a picture of my tree of the day at a part. outside the hotel at Belgrade. And even that led to dozens, just regurgitating. One of them actually

said, you know, Belgrade welcomes the return of the NATO bomber, right, which I thought was spit off. He was so nice and charming before the interview. And actually, I didn't, Fiona, my Fiona thought he was rude and aggressive. I didn't find him brood and aggressive. I just thought he was very spiky and absolutely determined not to give an inch on Kosovo. So most of the stories were actually about the Kosovo war. Well, let me just do a quick explainer on the Kosovo war so people understand the two sides of this. So from the point of view of the United Kingdom and the United States and those other countries, I think it was almost 19 of them who joined the alliance,

this was the responsibility to protect. Here was a Kosovo-Albanian Muslim population that was being ethnically cleansed and the West was intervening to save lives, drive back the Serbian aggressive forces and defend the human rights of the Kosovo from the Serbian point of view Kosovo was absolutely part of Serbia. This was an illegal intervention with no proper UN clearance and backing. It was breaking the sovereign borders of a European state interfering in its own internal affairs and they very much see Kosovo as being a central part of Serbia totally reject the idea of its independence.

And he was also trying to argue in the interview that what happened in 99 was actually the end of the global international order. Because it was an operation without UN sanction. It broke the sovereign borders of a state. And from his point of view, there's absolutely no difference between what NATO did in Kosovo and what Vladimir Putin did by seizing parts of eastern Ukraine claiming he was protecting the indigenous Russian population. Yeah. It was a huge, huge moment. I mean, Tony Blair hadn't been primeness of that long. He actually, we had to work quite hard to persuade the Americans that this was in their national interest as well.

Couldn't have been done without the Americans. And it was pretty brutal. It was brutal on both sides. And I think the reason why maybe there was quite a lot of spikiness between me and him, when I was based at NATO, we used to just everything that came out from Vouchish, we said that, well, he was the head of the Milosovitch Lime Machine, because they were, you know, propagandising the whole way. Very interesting to see, we had a lot of reaction to this interview,

and we've just sort of boiled it down. So here, I give you the sort of the crux of the listener feedback, Rory. Listeners appreciated the opportunity to hear an opposing perspective. And I thought on Auburn, it was really interesting to hear that, to hear somebody who likes Orban and gave us reasons why. Some found value in listening to an articulated voice from the right and that felt that we'd least engage with that without our usual kind of sneering if it had been Boris Johnson or whoever.

Quite a lot of people said they actually thought it was the best episode we've done, possibly for that reason. And the basic thing coming through was how important it is in a polarised world to try to understand people of different opinion. Negative sentiment. And I think a lot of this came from inside Serbia. My friend Nomania Vidic, do you know, Namanya Vidic, Rory? Former footballer Man United in Serbia. He sent me a man.

I said, what do you think? And he said, I think he'd have liked it. You gave him a great platform. Yeah, yeah. And I think the Serbian opposition, a bit like people who are opponents of El Shara and Syria, are just like you are. our total puppets, the regime, you came in from the moment you arrived, Vuchich's propaganda machine and his basically state-controlled media used our presence to legitimise him, mock the West, boost his nationalist credentials and that we were puppets in his hand. And I think on the reasons,

and this is what's come through in the feedback, because they felt we didn't push him hard and off on democratic backsliding. The problem is with these interviews, and he was generous with his time, but the problem of these interviews, so he sort of, and he did something very clever, which, and I knew what he was doing, he basically said, I'll give you the judiciary. I'll give you the judiciary. Yeah, maybe on that, we've not been great, okay. But once you get into an argument about you control the media, no, I don't, yes, you do, no, you don't. I just think it's so boring. The fact is, he does control very large parts of the media. There are two types of problem, isn't it? It's very, very difficult, to be honest, for an outsider coming in to Spain

or Serbia to ever have the full detailed stuff that a Spanish opposition politician or a Serbian opposition politician would have to construct these arguments. But the second thing is we have to make a choice, which is not an easy choice. If you go in in order to use it to prosecute the case that this guy is an authoritarian ruler, then it's a show where you and I are just telling our audience that we disapprove of Vichich. The second choice is to try to let these people speak for themselves and trust that the audience can take on board the fact that we don't approve of this guy. In fact, we think this guy is an extremely uncomfortable fact who is backsliding on democracy, pro-Orban, flirting with Trump, pushing back on media, a very difficult actor,

but we're going to give him a voice. And also, I think, you know, with Vuchich, we're also gambling on something, which is the guy has changed his position so often. The big game is going to be, as we talked about in the first half, can we get Serbia into the European Union? And what does that involve in terms of holding one's nose and saying potentially this is a nationalist authoritarian, but the bigger strategic interest of Europe is going to be getting places like Serbia and trying to convince someone like Vucch which has come along? And at which point, I think actually that would be the reason and it would give you the opportunity to get rid of the whole thing of, you know, unanimity, which is what gave Orban the power to block so much of what the European Union

majority wanted to do. And a lot of people apparently got upset by the fact that I said at the interview, nice to see you. And he said, please, please come back to Belgrade more often. But again, I think that's, that assumes that all you should do, he and I having been literally enemies in a war situation, that assumes that you should hold on to that position forever. Now, I feel on Kosovo, he is holding onto the position for political reason, which I understand. And we could have sat there all day and just said, well, hold on a minute, no, this resolution, that resolution. We'd have lost people. I think it is important. There are some limits. I mean, there are some people that I wouldn't want to give, necessarily give a platform to. But let's just imagine we were

interviewing Donald Trump, right? Now, Donald Trump, his team would know pretty quickly what we think about him. Would we just want to expose him for what we think he is? Or would we actually want to hear why he is like he is? I think we'd want to do a mix. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the same would be true if you interviewed Nigel Farage or Cam Beid and Alcom. Presumably, Farage is worried about coming on the show because he doesn't think he's going to really give a chance to explain his views.

Which is not true. Which is not true. And if we did that, by the way, we'd get a lot of people attacking us, but it would be the right thing to do. I also thought that Voucher... And by the way, I think people are sick of these gotcha interviews. I just watched one the other day. What was it? Oh, it was Lewis Goodall.

I think it's really good, but he was doing an interview with Darren Jones, Kirstama's chief secretary. It was unwatchable after a few minutes, and Darren Jones handled it really well, because he was quite humorous about it. But it's this whole gotcha thing. You're a bad person, I'm a good person, I'm speaking on behalf of the public. It actually is populist. It's playing into the idea, as opposed to with Vuchich,

you're an interesting person, you're a very complicated person, and we're going to try and find out a little bit more about who you are and what you're trying to do. And by the way, I thought his stuff on China was absolutely fascinating. The final thing that I wanted to bring up, and there's so many other things I took away from it. So I was there in Montenegro and in Kosovo, 1990,000 as a British diplomat, and moving back and forward with British soldiers. And I looking back on my 26-year-old self, I must be honest. You're 26?

I was 26 then. He was 28. Yeah. I must be honest that I hadn't thought about it for a long time. and to be reminded by Vucicic of the very, very negative, deep sense. You know, we walked past a building that had been hit by the native bombs, that still has graffiti on the side. The army, Kosovo, the army's returning.

Yeah, me desperately trying to remember some of the Serbo Krua that the British government very kindly paid for me to learn. I'm trying to read these Cyrillic things. But the other thing that I think connects to the first half is this question of how they deal with Trump. And they, I mean Republic of Serbska, Albania, Bosnia, the rest of them. Without naming names too much, it is astonishing in that region what you pick up on. One of the leaders, it's claimed by somebody who knows a lot, gave $20 million to somebody

who'd been part of Trump's first administration, believing the guy would get him into the Trump's second administration and feels cheated and ripped off because the individual or got a job in a different part of the Trump administration didn't help him. Another one of the leaders has apparently handed over all the mines in the territory that he controls and in return gets to swagger around Amarilago. The stories about hotels everywhere, you know, this bit of coastline has been given. The bomb site? Absolutely.

That was the site that Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. were trying to turn into a five-star hotel. Totally bizarre stuff, right. Suddenly, Albanian coastal development is taking place with Trump allies. The Bosnians are now giving contracts to the brother of Flynn, who was the disgraced national security advisor and Trump's lawyer with a company that's never done any business. It's just got over a billion dollar contract to try to move gas lines through Bosnia. You're not doing the Balkan case for enlargement. Much good here, right? Donald J. Trump Jr. suddenly turns up in Republic of Serb scribble places, which is this Serb nationalist enclave of Bosnia where he's suddenly doing business. And they're so frank about it.

I mean, nowhere outside the Gulf have I heard countries talk so openly about the idea that essentially, and they're all spending money on lobbyists, I mean, eye-washing them out. And what are these lobbyists? These lobbyists are basically people in Washington who claim that if you give them colossal sums of money, millions, millions of dollars, they will get you in. Shake Trump's hand, go in for a meeting, get some concession. the case of Republic of Serbska, all the sanctions were lifted. Is that or is that not connected to the fact that Trump's companies have suddenly got mining concessions and Donald J. Trump Jr. is building hotels. No, I mean, look, the corruption, Scaram U.S.

I keep saying this on the rest of the politics of the US. Corruption is off the scale. And it's in plain sight. I mentioned last week the interview that Eric Trump did on live on television about a multi-million pound contract. He just landed at the Pentagon. Well, what was he going to get? Is he really a kind of military expert?

Does he really know about drone technology, or could it be that he's Donald Trump's son? So, listen. And as with all corruption, sir, my final thing that I thought is how angry they keep getting because they'll pay someone money and nothing will happen. And one of the problems with corruption is that you don't know who's lying to you, who actually has access, who doesn't. A lot of people, I think, in the Gulf are very, very angry with the United States. Because they feel they gave a huge amount of money and Trump isn't replying to their calls.

Yeah, yeah. And I think the hotel falling through and there's a culture minister. about the hotel. Well, so what's happened is that the hotel, the site, which is an extraordinary thing, it's been there ever since the war in 1999. And it's left with the bomb damage. And the way Victoria is there, it's all sort of, you know, the ground has not been repaired, the buildings are not repaired, the windows are all shattered. And it's there as a reminder. And by the way, those reminders have been a very effective part of the propaganda that Vukic was, Vutritch was continuing by, because that's what makes thing, we were attacked. This was their

army headquarters. We were attacked. We didn't attack anybody. And a lot of the younger kids, now they think that because that's what they're told. So Kushner and Trump Jr. wanted to turn this into a five-star hotel and offices. It doesn't make any sense. Can I just interrupt you're saying? It seems completely mad, right?

So you've got this enormous monument in the middle of your country to the war with all its shrap, and damage and conduct. And you want the aggressors to come and rebuild it? Into a five-star hotel? Yeah, and an office block. I mean, it seems kind of slightly weird.

It would be like, I don't quite understand how, I'm trying to find the analogy, but most of the analogies I come up with a too sick to be plausible. but if you've made your whole national identity around this wrecked, smashed up bit of, you know, I don't know, what, I mean, I don't tell you what it is, that the Chinese come and demolish the Statue of Liberty and decide to build the Chinese embassy on its site. Okay. And that's what it feels like to me. I can, listen, put it this way, the nationalists did not like the idea of the aggressor coming along and building a hotel.

Hence my Statue of Liberty analogy. The other thing I would say, though, is that having been to Belgrade. periodically, but with quite long gaps between the visits, the city itself is transformed. Yeah. And there would be something quite positive, I think, if they could get rid of that, I saw, and say the war is now in the past, but they don't want the war to be in the past. And I also think the big point in European Union, they're never, ever going to get into the European Union until they resolve the issue. And I didn't get any feeling from him that he saw the way to resolve it.

Well, let's hope that's not true, because we want them in the European Union, they're not going to resolve the issue. So I think, actually, we need to return to a much more imaginative structures of how. how we get these countries into the European Union. Because if we get stuck with that, we'll say Moldova can't come in because they haven't resolved. The conversation with Transnistria. Ukraine can't come in because Crimea is separate. Serbia can't come because they can't recognize Kosovo. Yeah.

You know, Bosnia can't coming because we're going. If we're actually to get them in, and I think the argument is we need to, warts and all, warts and all, then we need a bit of courage. And the reason why this matters so much at the moment is the European Commission for Enlargement, Mardiq. boss, the woman that I went to Ukraine with, she's warned the six Western Balkan countries that are trying to get into the European Union that they are on the path to losing 700 million euros from the EU growth plan by the middle of this year if they don't step up on the reforms on which she says there is too much backsliding. Anyway, if you've missed this interview that we're talking about so much and there has been front page news for several days in Serbia

and the whole episode played out on their news programs, then just search leading wherever you get your podcast. And do just again, go back through the back catalogue of leading. There are some amazing things. Nas Shah, for example, who we interviewed, I thought was extraordinary. She is a Labour Backbencher, which doesn't sound very exciting to people. But in fact, if you listen to the story, is the most moving story of female courage, resilience. I mean, she is that.

That's one tough lady. And that's an extraordinary story. So if you haven't listened to Naschar, Nazshar, Naschar, Sarah McBride. What did you think about Sarah McBride? Tell us about Sarah McBride. Love Sarah McBride. Ceregrind transgender, U.S. congresswoman,

talking incredibly calmly and openly about her experience. I know this will be offensive to some listeners. Please listen. I'd love to be. When I posted it recently, as somebody said, oh, two white men talking to a white man. Yeah, there we are. So, so anyway, if you're of that view,

do listen to the interview and then come back to us and tell us what you're honestly think. Okay. Right. Very briefly, and there's not much point lingering too long on this because we're recording this on Tuesday morning. There's going to be a vote in Parliament later on the day as to whether Keir Stahma should be referred to the Privileges Committee. Labor are defending it very, very robustly saying the whole thing's a lot of nonsense and it's a deliberate stunt to try to equate him with Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, Philip Barton, former head of the Foreign Office, who, one of my favourite diplomats ever, he was in our private office when early in the Blair years. His nickname for me is Bartoneau because, as you know,

you may know, Rory, I've never congratulated anybody on receiving your honour because I don't believe in the honour system, but I've always called him Bartolab. Because he got an OB. He got his OBE while he was in number 10. And then at 11 o'clock, we've got Morgan McSweeney, so that will doubtless. It'll be the first time that most members of the public have seen him or heard him. And are you expecting great revelations, or are they going to be rather sort of cautious and I sort of feel Fiona keeps saying that she thinks this story has got to where Westland got in the Thatcher era. Westland was this big scandal about the sale of a helicopter company. To the US.

I mean, interesting, Hesseltine who got... Well, it's US for Europe, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah. Heseltine, who got into that is maybe an early precursor of this whole conversation that's dominated this whole podcast, which is how do you think about being less dependent on the US and have more of a European thing? And Heseltine is basically saying, we cannot have a situation where we are totally dependent on the United States for our helicopters. We need some strategic autonomy. His storming out of the cabinet was one of the highlights of my journalistic life. Anyway, but what she said is that pretty

soon people got confused by Western and couldn't remember what it was about. I think when I was, I actually ended up turning the radio off this morning because they were going, you know, somebody I'd never heard of who'd given written evidence, was it contradicted by the verbal evidence that was given last week? And I was kind of losing the will to live. And I just feel it's one of those frenzies. Kirstein was admitted he made a terrible mistake in the employment. I'm not convinced that all this kind of ins and outs on the vetting process is going to go anywhere. So you're not expecting great revelations. I'm not, but, you know, famous last words.

I think Philip Barton will have been pissed off at the process. I think Morgan McSweeney will probably find it hard to say he wasn't pushing quite hard to get Beda Mandelson in place come what may. But we shall see. And meanwhile, the local elections are limbering up and hardly anybody's talking about local election issues. One thing we do know is they're not going to be a pretty night for labour. Right. And the polling is pretty extraordinary. Some of the polling we've seen, we've got reform leading labour by, you know, 9% 29 to 20 in the national polls, even if that narrows.

We've got, I think, 63% of the British public saying there's been little or no change under the Labour government. This is polling done by Portland, Portland P.R. FN. Personal financial has gone from plus one to minus eight, net sentiment on the economy down by 10. So public opinion is not on a happy place. No, it's really not. There's not much point as getting deep into it today. I think we got into it pretty deep last. week, some of our listeners thought too deep, others thought love it, hearing Alice to say negative things about the Labour Party, enjoyed that, but we'll doubtless come back to it. But I'm famous last words, I think this is a storm that is blowing out. We've done a romp around the world, but right at the centre of this is this question

of what on earth Britain does with the US, how Serbia deals with the US, and I think this is again and again coming back to the big long-term issues of what kind of world we want to shape. And we will be returning to that, I think, a little bit in question time, where we're going to be talking about Palantir, a company that's been very much in the headlines recently. It's a big U.S. tech company that now has a dominant position, not just in the Ministry of Defense, but in things like the National Health Service. So we'll be talking about it. We'll also be talking about the foreign office cutting its international humanitarian law department, which, you know, I would again link to this weird problem that Britain has of trying to work out what it's going to do. in a post-American world. You wanted to talk also about mental health. I always want to talk about mental health. And grief? Yeah, maybe a little bit on grief. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Looking forward to it. Cool.