Peter Mandelson: 'We're all engaged in a strategic rivalry with China' | FT

You can enable subtitles (captions) in the video player

Hello everyone, and thank you. Peter, for being with us. Right, I know.

I'm now the Dark Lord, by the way, not the prince... or the Prince of Darkness. I've gone up in the world.

This was going to be a very, very serious conversation and we will get to some serious matters. But Janine, who's very cheeky, has now forced me to start by asking you, why the Prince of Darkness?

Very simply, because in the 1990s, when I was younger than I am, I had been the Labour party campaign director in the '80s, and then again in the '90s. And in the '90s when Tony Blair became leader, people associated me with campaign glitz, razzmatazz, and the occasional deployment of media dark arts. And one of Tony's colleagues, not a great fan of Tony, said that he was surrounded by people who operate in the dark. And our satirical magazine in Britain, Private Eye, then dubbed me 'the Prince of Darkness.' There you are.

That's a great story. No?

But as you can see, I exude light.

Transparency.

Transparency and bonhomie.

OK. We're going to test that. So before you came to DC, you gave George Parker, my colleague at the FT, a long interview. I think he spent a lot of time with you. And one of the things you said was that your objective was to stay out of the limelight.

Below the radar, I think.

Below the radar. And then suddenly you're at the White House with the president praising your accent. What's with the accent?

Actually, when I first came in, he said, you're a good looker, aren't you?

And then, I mean, the truth is that I had both been invited and disinvited...

Yeah, you weren't quite sure...

...in the hours before this Oval appearance. And when the invitation was confirmed, a man who seemed to be the master of ceremonies, not the president, somebody working in the Oval said, you just stand there. You don't have to say anything. I said, fine.

So I was standing there not saying anything. And then after the president had spoken, he turned to me and said, well, what have you got to say?

I mean, he's like that.

But you were very eloquent, so you were prepared.

I wasn't prepared for that. No, I was prepared for what I thought would be media interviews afterwards. In fact, there were none because I'd said it all in the Oval. And so I had it in my head. But at that moment, I was taken by surprise. But it was fine.

Yeah, I mean, it could have gone... you never know when you're in the Oval these days. I mean, it could go...

Well, who knows what's suddenly going to disappear out of your head and come out of your mouth. I mean, you have to be really careful, but there is something about the president.

Yes.

He's actually a rather gracious individual, and he's funny. And he is, obviously, as people have described him, a people person. So he responds to personalities. Anyway, it was a great relief, I tell you, when I got out of there intact.

We can definitely say that the get to Washington, get in with the Trump people, that has definitely worked because you are today a winner. It's very important to be a winner in this town, right? The first trade deal to be, in fact, the only trade deal.

Well, it certainly seemed to have generated a lot of envy, judging by the WhatsApp messages I've received from fellow ambassadors. It's sort of a mixture of seething admiration and a lot of resentment.

So they've said - and a lot of them have said - well done, how did you do it, how did you pull this off or whatever. But look, the truth is that there are some of America's trading partners who are rather more complicated to do deals with. But what happened with this trade deal was, look, to be honest, I first of all approached it with the embassy here and our great colleagues in London who did a lot of the heavy lifting of the negotiation, along with my officials in the embassy.

We thought it was a sort of tactical response, in a sense, to the president's tariffs to 'liberation day', but it actually morphed during the course of the negotiation into something more substantial, so that at the end of it we find that the trade deal covers the vast bulk of our industrial exports, our goods exports to the United States, whether it be autos, or pharma, or aerospace, or steel, or whatever. They are the main by value, the main exports we have. And those industries are covered by this deal.

So people who say, oh, well, you were just sort of responding to 'liberation day,' further forward, all you're doing is delivering something which was approximated to what we had the day before 'liberation day' are not correct. I mean, what we've done is to pull off something.

You still have 10 per cent tariffs. It started with 10 per cent, as Howard Lutnick said. Started with 10, ended with 10. Before Trump, you didn't have 10.

In some cases we do, but in now many cases, we don't. And as I said, at the time, the president agreed, this is the end of the beginning. So we've made a start, and we have a platform to do two further things.

First of all, to continue negotiating the reduction and elimination of tariffs. The United States has committed to that. I mean, we may be slightly more ambitious. We may want to eliminate more tariff lines than they do. But let's see what happens in the course of the negotiation. And secondly, we now have opened the door to a much bigger, broader, deeper technology partnership.

I want to get to that because...

That's very important, because...

...what that is.

In the longer term, that's where the additional value is going to come.

So just before we get to that, we're not 100 per cent sure what will happen on the pharmaceutical side yet. But it is...

Pharmaceutical is a really complicated sector. And the reason why I think the administration is taking a bit more time is because you don't want inadvertently to disrupt medical, medicine supply chains, drug supply chains. So you have to be really careful about how you intervene as governments in that trade, in those supply chains, because the unexpected can happen.

So there is one thing that was included, which is you've accepted strict security requirements. This is for steel and pharma. And are we right in seeing this as a template to make sure that you exclude China from the supply chain? Is that something that they came in with as this is one of the objectives of your trade deal or any trade deal?

Well, two points. First of all, in Britain, we already have a National Security Investment Act. We have legislation which checks our supply chains, checks exports, checks inward investment, as far as China is concerned. Not only China, of course. It's not a China piece of legislation.

But let's be honest, it focuses a lot on China. So we're already doing that. And what the deal acknowledges is that we have that legislation, economic security, supply chain investment legislation already in place. So that is not...

So you don't see that as an additional requirement? Because it is in there.

I see there will be greater scope for co-operation between the UK and the US. But on the basis, first of all, of our existing legislation. And secondly, importantly, these are sovereign decisions by the British government. We're not offering a veto to the US.

OK. Well, that's important.

But can I also make just a short addendum? All of us are more concerned now about supply chain resilience and security. We in the west, frankly, including Britain, have become overly exposed to and overly dependent on supply from China.

China is now a country with whom we are all engaged in a strategic rivalry. It doesn't mean to say that we want to cut off relations with China, or that we suddenly want to turn China into some sort of enemy or whatever, but we have to be realistic about it. We are competing with China. In some respects, China, not least, for example, in the support they're giving to Putin and Russia in Ukraine, has become a bit of an adversary to us. So we have to be realistic about this, I'm afraid. And whilst...

Would you say your views of China have changed?

Yes, they have. Yes, they have. I mean, I think I've gone through three stages, really, with China. First of all, when I was the European Union's trade commissioner in the first decade of this century, I was essentially bedding down China into the international trading system following its entry into the World Trade Organisation two years before. And that was a sort of a bedding down of China in what we assumed would be a clear framework, clear principles, clear trade rules.

Then we had in Britain under the Conservative leader, David Cameron, what they called 'the golden era.' And that was throw the doors open, throw the windows open, bring China in, and let's all have a wonderful jamboree. Well, we're not in that era anymore.

And so we're in the third era. I would say. Where we're coming to terms with China's extraordinary exponential economic growth. The way in which it has come to dominate, in many aspects, the International trading system by operating an economic model that is committed to vast overproduction and an assumption, frankly, that the rest of the world would simply suck up their surplus capacity, whatever the consequences for our own domestic production and trading position. Now, I don't think we can accept that as given, presented to us on a plate by China.

I would just so add this, if I may, Roula. It's an area where the president here has identified a real issue, a real challenge. And in trade he's taking measures and action to combat what he thinks needs to be addressed and has been ignored by governments previously. All I would say is that in addressing the imbalances in trade that China has created and the wider deficiencies, frankly, in the international trading system and its rule book is operated by the WTO, it would be better for the United States to work with other big players in the trading system than relying simply on its own efforts. So if we're going to...

Or alienate the others by imposing tariffs, because it would make a lot more sense if the US works with Britain and Europe to try to isolate China. But what's happened now is quite... they've imposed tariffs on everybody.

I'm not suggesting that we can take China and put it in the corner on the naughty chair and say, we're now going to isolate China. China's a bit large for that. No, what I'm saying is that if we are really going to bring about the rebalancing that we want, it's better for two huge trade players, like the United States and the European Union, to work together in doing that, and to recruit other, including Asian countries, to that programme, to those policies.

And that's the only sort of addendum I would add, which is, yes, you're right to identify the problem. I can understand the actions that you're taking. But frankly, if you really want in the long term to have the impact on China, better to work with others.

A couple of other questions on the trade deal. One, it is non-binding. So are you confident that there won't be suddenly tariffs on or just the reversal of the recent deal?

It is binding. It is binding. I mean, we are two very close allies. You don't have an agreement entered into simply for it to be repudiated the day after. That's not how we work.

No, but I mean, that's not how you normally work. But I mean, you have to admit that we are not in a...

Sorry, what did you have in mind?

...predictable.

Not sure I'm following your...

OK, well, let's talk about Hollywood, then. Let's talk about films. So President Trump, for example, now wants to impose 100 per cent tariffs on films made abroad, which would impact the UK industry, obviously. I mean, that would be a problem. So, I mean, that's suddenly...

Let's be absolutely clear. It would affect American industry.

Yes.

It's American production hubs that are in Britain and other countries. So, of course, we benefit hugely from American film production in our country. And of course, we don't want to see tariffs, although I'm not absolutely sure practically how you would impose a tariff on a film. But that's...

I agree with you. I'm not sure either.

That's to be worked out. But of course we don't want to see that. But nor does the overwhelming bulk of the American film industry want to see that happen. Now, it may be that perhaps the factors that encouraged American filmmakers to go abroad in the first place need to be revisited and examined here. I mean, why was it the case that they found it easier, cheaper, and better to partly export production to countries like Britain? Perhaps there's something wrong here in America.

Yeah. Well, because it is easier, cheaper, and there's a lot of talent abroad.

Well, you said it.

I mean, there's a lot of talent in the United States.

I'm not making policy.

There's a lot of talent in the United States, but there's also fantastic creativity. I mean, both sort of creativity in an artistic and cultural way in Britain, but technical, technological creativity in Britain. And that's why the industry is looking to share some of their production with us.

So before I get to the tech partnership that you've mentioned, I just want to bring up Brexit. You were obviously not a fan of Brexit. But do you see this deal as maybe a benefit? We have been waiting for many years for some benefit from Brexit.

Nice water.

You still have to answer the question.

Could we have done this trade deal with the United States if we'd still been members of the European Union? No. Have we nonetheless lost quite a lot by leaving the European Union? Yes.

Do we now need to repair some of what we've lost in the European Union through the negotiation and the reset that the British government is currently negotiating with the European Union? The answer is yes. The truth is, Roula, that we left the European Union on the basis of a terrible deal. I have to say the European Union was pretty unfair to us, pretty beastly.

But then it was an ugly divorce. And we had a government at the time and a prime minister who didn't know one end of a negotiation from the other. I mean, it was just woeful, baleful.

But we have a chance to improve it now.

We do have a new, look. That Brexit deal left a lot to be desired, it left a lot of loose ends and a lot of unfinished business. And what the reset is doing is simply trying to repair, or improve, or finish the negotiation that Boris Johnson embarked on in the first place, rather suboptimally.

You said that a lot of your colleagues were calling you to see how you did it, what can they learn from it. The UK didn't really have a trade imbalance with the US. So, in a way, a problem was created, which you had to then fix, but others do. So are there any learnings for your colleagues here?

Well, I'm afraid they've got to be really creative. Really creative. We were creative. We found a creative way of addressing the sectoral tariff, 25 per cent sectoral tariff that was imposed on autos. And we did it by means of a quota and a reduced tariff.

And they're going to have to be similarly ingenious. But I tell you, you're not going to have that ingenuity sort of reciprocated if you don't have a serious, professional, cordial relationship in the first place. And I think the point is that, we have a basis, we have a foundation of a relationship between Britain and the United States in which there's a great deal of trust, a lot of confidence in each other, and familiarity with how we work.

We read the room quite well in Britain. And there's a new room in the United States for us to read. And we've had to adapt to that. And frankly, those other countries are going to have to as well.

It is much more difficult for others because when I talk to governments, particularly in Europe, what you hear is that it is too chaotic in Washington today to be able to even know. I mean, they still say, we don't know what they want. So it's not as if the US is coming to them with specific proposals. It's all up in the air. You didn't find it chaotic?

I don't completely agree with that, actually. I mean, look, we're in new territory. I mean, suddenly 'liberation day', and shock and awe, and all those tariffs. I mean, it's new. How do you come to terms with that?

And your response to it and how you negotiate is, frankly, an iterative process. There's a bit of trial and error. A lot of creativity has to be thrown in. And I wouldn't describe it as chaotic.

I would just say that, well, we were a bit of a trailblazer. You have got to find new ways of addressing these negotiations. And they're going to have to do so as we did.

Are you hopeful? Do you think there will be other deals?

Oh, I'm sure there will be. I'm sure there will be. I mean, you can't slap the sort of tariffs on countries sort of India, and Taiwan, and Vietnam, and other Asian countries, and you can't do as they have proposed to carry on doing with the European Union without finding a solution.

Or 145 per cent on China, for that matter.

Well, I would be surprised if 145 per cent on China lasted. I suspect they will find a way of negotiating that down to a slightly lower tariff, and then they'll continue talking and find new policy solutions to get it below, say, the 50 per cent or whatever it is. But you know, China has got to come to terms with the fact that not just in the United States, but in Europe as well, and other countries as well, are not simply prepared to sit back and suck up everything they give to us in trade.

They've got to make an adjustment and reflect a little bit more on how they've got into a situation where frankly, yes, there are a lot of people who trade vast amounts with China, but they do so slightly resentfully. And they don't like the imbalance that has been created by China's economic model.

What would you be advising them now?

China?

Yeah. I mean, you do have very good relations with some.

Well, I was more a previous era. I was more a President Xi era.

What is the best way for China today to reach some kind of an understanding with the US? Because they seem to be tempted to wait until there's really...

When I was trade commissioner, I had so many discussions with Chinese leaders. And I said, you're building up something which is going to burst. I'm telling you, I know my people in Europe. We're going to take it and go along with this.

But if you don't do more to open up your economy, if you don't do more to rebalance trade, if you don't create opportunities in China for us in Europe, if you don't create the chance for us to benefit more from China's growth, there's going to be a backlash. And I use the term backlash again, and again, and again. The general secretary of the Communist party, Premier Wen Jiabao, the commerce minister, I spoke to them all, the international department, I said, there is going to be a backlash.

This was in the first decade of this century. Xi Jinping then comes along, takes over from the previous leaders, most of whom were operating in a frame of thinking that Deng Xiaoping had sort of embarked on at the end of the '70s and the early '80s, which was, in a sense, what China was doing was, yes, taking huge advantage of the international trading system. But they were also prepared, I thought then, to exercise a bit more responsibility, to understand the needs and demands of the rest of the world with whom they were in an economic and trade partnership. They were, in a sense, navigating their way as new and emerging partners in that international system.

What I think happened when Xi Jinping took over was that they sort of decided, well, actually, we don't have to accept their rules. We don't have to accept their system. We're not junior partners to the United States and the west. We're going to assert ourselves. And we're going to do everything even more our way, whatever the consequences for everyone else.

And I think Xi Jinping, therefore, took China on a wrong course. Some have described it as a cul-de-sac. Well, let's see whether it's a cul-de-sac. I think arguably, it is, because at the end of the day, China cannot exist and operate in the rest of the world when it's building up so many resentments and so many resistances to how they're organising their own economic model.

Just related to China, we had a story earlier this week about the Pentagon telling the UK to focus on Europe and not involve itself in the Indo-Pacific military.

No, we don't accept that.

You don't accept that?

No. We have a responsibility, a global responsibility as a country. That's why we're partners with the United States and Australia in the Aukus military alliance, which is not just a security alliance. It also has huge technological potential for us to act as partners.

Now, I don't think you can divide the world into that's the Indo-Pacific theatre, this is the Euro-Atlantic theatre. Well, the one doesn't impinge on the other. Therefore, we can keep into this compartment. You can go into that compartment.

The world is not as simple as that, as you've seen, by the way, in Europe, where who's there helping the Russians? China, North Korea, Iran. So can you compartmentalise Europe and say, we don't care about the Chinese, and the North Koreans, and the Iranians? Absolutely not. These are global security issues and threats.

And we as a country in Britain have a global responsibility to play our part. Yes, in Nato first. No question about that. Nato first, the Euro-Atlantic. But we're also in Aukus and we have a role to play in the Indo-Pacific.

So have you said so? Because I mean, this did come out of the Pentagon.

No, no, no. Well, it is a view that some in the Pentagon hold, true. And we are going to have that discussion. Our defence secretary had a very, very good meeting with the US Secretary of Defense, Peter Hesketh. I was there with him.

It was a good discussion. And I didn't hear the defence secretary say to ours, by the way, would you mind keeping out of the Indo-Pacific? I didn't hear that. I heard, glad you're in Aukus and we've got to do more to sustain that alliance.

But it does worry you when there are signals being sent that maybe they don't. Maybe despite the fact that nothing was said in that particular meeting.

We engage with it. We engage with it.

So just... and I am going to get to the tech partnership and I am going to get to your questions, so do prepare them. But speaking of security, one of the other things that you had said in that FT piece was that...

It seems so long ago that FT piece.

Oh, just a few months ago.

Years ago.

I'm still going to bring it up. But that one, another objective is that you wanted to make sure that the US maintains its commitment to European security. And we've seen, it's been up and down. Are you now in a better place?

The prime minister and other European leaders are in Kyiv today. There is an attempt to get a 30-day ceasefire. Do you think that the administration and the president himself has now seen and understood that Putin does not want peace?

I think the president has said that he wants a proper ceasefire, one that the Ukrainians, the president of Ukraine, has declared their own commitment to. And he wants to see that commitment matched by Putin and the Russians. That's what the president has said.

So you are now all on the same wavelength?

Yes. And it's significant that in Kyiv today, the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, the French President, Macron, the German Chancellor, Merz, and the Polish Prime Minister, Tusk, are all there demonstrating their absolute commitment to and solidarity with the Ukrainian people. We saw Putin yesterday strutting around Red Square with all those... Xi Jinping and those other people supporting them.

Couldn't care... couldn't give a fig, frankly, for peace in the world and how we need to manage things globally. They're out for themselves. Well, our people were in Kyiv today, not out for themselves, but out for the Ukrainians, out for peace in Europe, and out for the good of the rest of the world. And it's not only that they were there in Kyiv, but who called in to join their discussions? The president of the United States.

But we do know that the president of the United States also has... wants a good relationship with Russia.

He wants...

And he always says he likes Putin. He gets Putin. He understands Putin.

He wants Russia to terminate its invasion of a European country. That's what he wants. And he's right to want it. And we are completely supportive of his efforts to bring this to an end through negotiation.

We're completely supportive of his attempts to persuade Putin that he's got to step up, stop this war, and properly bring peace, and respect the sovereignty, and the democracy, and the freedom of another European country. We welcome what the president has said on that. And we are also committed, as European countries, as well as some outside Europe, to create a coalition of the willing, a reassurance force to protect... do our part in protecting Ukraine in the future.

And that is something the president has also said he is supportive of. So we are OK. We may not agree with every dot and comma of every tactical move or statement, but broadly speaking, we're on the same page.

That's interesting.

I'm not so sure, but I'm going to take your word for it. I'm going to take your word for it. You would know. What about that tech partnership?

Yes.

What is that tech partnership? Does that mean...

It's going to be a brilliant tech partnership.

Yes. Does that mean that a lot more contracts for Palantir, for example, in the UK because they now have the NHS contract?

Let me take a step back, OK? We are not going to secure our livelihoods, our jobs, our quality of life, standard of living by trying to recreate the old manufacturing jobs of the last century. We've got to focus on the future industries. Those future industries are going overwhelmingly to be science based and driven by technology. Artificial intelligence offers us the key to accelerating scientific and technological advance in so many other sectors, whether it be nuclear fusion, or quantum computing, or engineering biology, or life sciences, or what we want to do in space.

And AI needs in Britain, as well as other European countries, to be rolled out with good foundations, proper infrastructure. We need data centres. And we also need, by the way, proper power supplies for those data centres. We need skills. We need talent.

And that is best achieved in co-operation or collaboration with American technology companies than trying in Europe and in Britain to reinvent everything for ourselves to make up, frankly, the ground that the United States companies have advanced across. It's much easier, better, and cheaper for us to incorporate American technology and then to apply it and let it provide the basis for new businesses, new industries in our own countries based on that collaboration. That's my idea, simply.

What does that mean in practise? Does it mean that we don't regulate the companies and we distinguish ourselves from the...

Of course you regulate them, but you regulate them in a pro-innovation, pro-growth sort of way. Not to smother and suffocate them and stop them from operating, which I'm afraid is what some sort of European instincts sometimes lead to. Anyway, we're not... in that sense, Britain is competing as not EU. I mean, we have not adopted...

Another benefit of Brexit. Look at that.

Will you stop this?

Look, I was in Brussels before Christmas. And I was talking to a very senior member of the European Commission. And I said, how do you see things economically? He said, well, we're lacking competitiveness in Europe, and our productivity growth is near zero, and we're facing big challenges.

I said, right, how are you going to address those challenges? He said, well, we've got to look again at a lot of the regulation. So that's interesting.

And I said, we, for example, haven't adopted the EU law relating to artificial intelligence. How's it going for you? Not well, he said. I thought that was interesting.

What about your gold standard, flagship GDPR data regulation, privacy, etc? Yeah, he said, that's killing too many businesses in Europe. I said, really? That's very interesting. He said, yes, we've got to change that.

Oh. I said, what about that other law that's coming down the tracks that's going to be operating in two years time, the sustainability compliance legislation? He said, yeah. Yeah, that didn't... it's not really satisfactory, that. I said, well, why didn't you see that before you made it and turned it into law?

He said, well, we did. I said, well, why didn't you do anything about it? He said, we realised too late. I mean, this is really not good enough.

No, that is a real problem.

This is really not good enough. And we in Britain are not going to make these mistakes. We are not going to... of course, we're going to regulate in the public interest. And of course, it's not a free for all. And technology and other companies know that only too well. But we're not going to make clumsy mistakes as...

But give me an example of what you're expecting. A concrete example of what this partnership would actually produce.

We are both brilliant, science-rich nations, OK? We have wonderful scientists and researchers working on the development of quantum computing, not least in Cambridge, Gillian. They have wonderful scientists and technologists working, computer scientists working in the United States that are developing quantum computing.

I think we can do better, quicker, and create a competitive advantage for both of us if we do that together. And the same can be said for a whole number of other sectors as well. And that's what I want to see.

Now, I know there are lots of bumps in the road and challenges that have got to be overcome. And I know, by the way, that when we do this work together, for example, in quantum, we've got to put a protective wall about it, around it, so that everything that we do, and invent, and create isn't just doesn't seep off into the Chinese economy. I realise that. So we've got to be careful. But I do think we can do more better, quicker together than doing it separately and apart.

Questions? OK. First hand to come up. I'm going to go to you, sir. Then I'll come here.

Demetri from the Financial Times. And this was not planned.

I didn't see that it was Demetri.

He wasn't supposed to get the first question.

I just want to be clear.

Not least because he can and does ring me any day of the week.

Very quickly.

What was the question, Demetri?

Have you read Art of the Deal?

Say again.

Have you read Art of the Deal, and what did you think of it?

I was given by Chris Ruddy of Newsmax, a copy of the Art of the Deal. And now I'm going to add an addendum to it: The art of the 'trade' deal.

So you're going to write the art of the trade deal?

I'm going to offer a short postscript.

OK. Here, and then there. Yeah. Oh, it was... yeah. Well, then you can come to the gentleman here. It's fine. Can you just tell us who you are, please?

Hi, I am James Ladi Williams. I lead a firm called Akhada that's wielding the power of words to build a world that is loving and just. My question for you is, ambassador, what would it take, on China specifically, to move away from a trade policy that is grounded in competition toward one that is rooted in, let's say, a foreign policy of friendship?

OK, that's a very good question.

The issue with competition is it surmises that there's a winner and a loser. And when you have a sore loser...

Let me answer your question, if I may. We're not going to eliminate economic competition in the world. Obviously not. But what we can do is make sure that competition is framed and governed by agreed rules and laws. And they come in the case of trade from the WTO. And I think we need to rebuild, remake the WTO and its rule book in a way that's fit for the 21st century, because at the moment it isn't.

Go ahead, please. Yes.

Sara Coggins, One Source Production. We do marketing for non-profits, foundations, and such. In terms of science and technology, and specifically scientific foundations, Mr Ambassador, what advice would you give to those who are perhaps nervous about loss of potential funding, sentiment surrounding science and technology, the research? And how does that affect and how would you want to just help make them feel more safe and stable, especially given this deal?

If I could wave one magic wand in my own country, it would be to conjure up the sort of resources, scale of investment and expenditure on science in my own country that you have had in the United States since the Second World War. It has made you what you are. It has created a potential, a realisation of that potential, the opportunities which I'm so desperately admiring of and very jealous of.

So, I would say, careful what you wish for, in a sense. I'm not denying that... look, it's often the case with what the president does that he's diagnosed an issue or a problem and he's applied some quite radical solutions to it. There is a problem with some American universities. We all know that. It's the same in Britain and other European countries.

That woke cancel culture went too far. It went too far. These are essential liberal institutions. Yes, but stifling debate and cancelling people because they're saying something you disagree with and all the other sort of woke ideological stuff that has spread.

Look, you've got to deal with that, but without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And the baby is that wonderful science, expenditure, and research capability that American universities have. Don't damage it. Don't damage it, would be my advice.

Over here, please.

Hi. Mac Brand, Bellwether Food Group. We do branding and strategy work for chain restaurants, retailers, and food and beverage companies. Mr Ambassador, if we were to meet here one year from today and you were really happy with what you'd accomplished with President Trump or the American officials, how would that conversation go?

In trade or generally?

Trade.

Well, trade, I would like an even bigger, higher performing trade liberalisation agreement than the one we have. And I'd like to put together that technology partnership, which we're foreseeing. I think that, as it were, mutual and beneficial trade liberalisation is in the interests of both our economies. So that's what I would like to see. But if I were to extend that, I'd say to you also, we've got to rethink European defence.

We can't accept any more, as we have in the past, and just taken for granted that the US will supply a very expensive defence and security guarantee to Europe without us stepping up and spending enough of our own money. These things have got to change. They've got to be rebalanced. And I just say again, some people may find some of the president's language a bit harsh, but there's a kernel of truth in a lot of what he is saying. And that goes for European defence spending as well.

Go ahead.

Hello. My name is Max. I live in Washington. And I work in economic policy. My question is, what is something about American political culture that has surprised you?

Good question.

It's volatility.

But look, the truth is that what we are seeing in American political culture is now a feature of politics for most of our countries. Look, when I was in government, and when I organised the election that we did in 1997 for Blair, we didn't have the same sort of volatility, the nationalism and populism that exists. We didn't have as fragmented a political system. We certainly didn't have Nigel Farage and his Reform party or whatever.

And the reason why politics has changed is partly because of the growth of China, partly because of the social impact of rapid globalisation and the impact of that on people's lives. And now we're seeing technological disruption, and we're at the beginning of that revolution, by the way, not anywhere near the end of it. So this has effects, impacts on people's lives, on society, and politics. And we're having to understand that and come to terms with that.

And by the way, the sort of mandate that President Trump derived from his election last November is not entirely dissimilar to the mandate that the Labour party and Keir Starmer took from our own election some months beforehand. People are really worried about the future, and their security, and the prospects for their families. They don't, by the way, feel that just opening up your borders and having any amount of immigration coming in, whoever they are, from wherever they're coming, is acceptable anymore.

Now, you may find people in the United States sometimes say, oh, I know, but these deportations are really ugly. Well, all I'd say is, were you really going to sustain the level of immigration that was coming into this country originally when the Texas border was open? No. And nor can we accept, frankly, in Britain, the levels of illegal immigration and unmanaged legal migration of people who are coming into our country.

The public are angry. The public are in revolt. And we've got to respond with serious, meaningful policies.

We saw that in Britain, of course, with the local elections where Reform surged pretty significantly. And Nigel Farage is now probably the most popular politician. Do you still think he can be a bridgehead to the Trump administration?

You say he's the most popular politician. I'm not sure that translates into people imagining that he can be prime minister, or that they want his party to form a government in our country.

You said he could be... he could be helpful.

But I take him... hold on a minute. I take him seriously. Obviously, I take him seriously. He got a strong popular vote. All I would say, it's so... I saw the election results recently, and everyone said, oh, my god, this is unprecedented. This is extraordinary. This is such a challenge.

Roula, I remember after we were elected in 1997, within a year we were losing by elections. Within a year people were saying, oh, this government, it's all spin and no delivery. I heard people saying, god, they got this colossal great majority at the election, and what's Blair done with it? Why hasn't the world changed? Why hasn't the country changed in a year?

People are impatient. They're angry. They want to see change. And they think that a party that achieves a huge election, majority at an election, that's somehow going to translate into overnight change. OK, people are right to be angry. They're right to be impatient. But governments have got to take their time to do things properly, methodically, systematically, so that change lasts and isn't some sort of spray paint job.

Well, I apologise. I am told that I have to wrap this up. Thank you.

I have so much more to say. It's so frustrating.

We could have been here all day.