A landmark India-EU trade deal, Ukraine’s security guarantees and Keir Starmer heads to Beijing

Summary

The Monocle Daily – Episode Summary (27 January 2026)

Theme of the Episode
This episode focuses on three major global developments: the landmark India-EU trade deal, the evolving security guarantees for Ukraine amid ongoing conflict, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s upcoming visit to China. Guests Alena Hlivko (foreign policy expert) and Vincent McAvenny (journalist) join host Andrew Muller to discuss the day’s pivotal stories, supplemented by an interview on strategic foresight and science diplomacy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. India-EU Trade Deal: A Historic Agreement

• Context:

  • After nearly 20 years of negotiations, India and the European Union signed a comprehensive trade deal, slashing tariffs on goods and services and opening markets for both sides.
  • Celebrated by Indian PM Narendra Modi, EU Council President Antonio Costa, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
  • "Trade is not a field for the impatient." — Andrew Muller [04:34]

• Implications:

  • European producers of cars, olive oil, wine, and beer gain easier access to India.
  • Indian jewelry, textiles, and handicrafts get a smoother route into European markets.

• Panel Insights:

  • Vincent:
    • The deal arrives after the UK signed a similar pact, highlighting India's shift from a protectionist stance.
    • "The best way of getting people on board is to trade, to have more commerce with them." [05:20]
    • Points to India's pro-Western, English-speaking, entrepreneurial population as a strength.
  • Alena:
    • Highlights India as the largest democracy, with an entrenched rule of law, making it a better fit than Russia or China.
    • Notes Western democracies must still consider risks of economic entanglement with non-aligned giants.
    • "Energy resilience and not relying on authoritarian states is something democratic countries would still need to work on in the future." [07:58]

• Trump’s Influence:

  • Discussion about whether Donald Trump’s tariff hikes on Indian imports accelerated the EU-India deal.
  • Vincent:
    • "If you are seen as an unreliable partner... then people might not want to put in the work and the long-term investment with you." [08:43]
  • Alena:
    • Suggests Ursula von der Leyen’s comments after the signing may have subtly jabbed at Trump’s approach. [09:45]

• EU’s Communication Challenge:

  • Vincent:
    • Criticizes the EU’s lack of effective PR about positive achievements. Recommends sector-tailored case studies to sell benefits to citizens. [10:04]

---

2. Ukraine’s Security Guarantees: Navigating Uncertainty

• Background:

  • Speculation swirls over U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine if a ceasefire is reached—rumors include conditions about ceding the Donbas to Russia.
  • President Zelenskyy claims a deal is imminent, but communications are murky and conflicting.

• Panel Insights:

  • Alena:
    • After two weeks in Washington, remains unsure. Notes “confusion, shame, and guilt” among U.S. policymakers, but also perseverance.
    • "We have to see what the US's role will be in that, because Europeans will be very timid and unsure of going in without them." [12:27]
    • Outlines uncertainty over NATO-style guarantees and possible involvement of European peacekeeping forces.
  • Vincent:
    • Predicts any compromise will result in a disputed/de facto partitioned territory, akin to postwar Berlin.
    • "That would become the flashpoint... where east meets West." [13:51]

• Ukrainian Perspective:

  • Alena:
    • Describes war exhaustion and pragmatic acknowledgment of Ukraine’s limited current capacity.
    • Still, the prospect of ceding territory is "a deal breaker"—especially if Western democracies formally recognize Crimea as Russian.
    • "That I think would violate not only their memory, but that would give absolutely zero confidence to the Ukrainians that Russia... will not come again." [15:27]

• European Security Concerns:

  • Discussion of possible Russian mischief post-ceasefire.
    • Vincent:
      • Unlikely Russia could mount a conventional attack soon, but warns of new “hybrid warfare” targeting Western logistics via social media and small acts of sabotage. [18:31]
  • Points to the use of information warfare/PR as a potential long-term tool to undermine Putin’s gains.

  Memorable Quote:

  • "There is investment, there is infrastructure, and people are having happy lives in a free and fair society. And one side is trapped under the yoke of Putin. Well, you win every day by putting out those images..." — Vincent [19:56]

---

3. Keir Starmer’s Trip to China: Realism, Risks, and Guardrails

• Backdrop:

  • UK PM Keir Starmer’s upcoming visit to Beijing and Shanghai is the first by a UK leader in 8 years.
  • Starmer insists the trip is not about substituting the U.S. as an ally but cautions “sticking your head in the sand and ignoring China would not be sensible.” [20:47]

• Panel Insights:

  • Alena:
    • Stresses realism about re-globalization: it isn’t over, it’s changing.
    • "We have to be very, very careful that we are now becoming part of forming this new world order, that we don't endorse the forces that we fought so hard against..." [21:33]
    • Emphasizes the need for “clear guardrails”—especially over human rights, the Uyghurs, and Chinese espionage.
  • Vincent:
    • Cites complex recent history (Huawei ban, Hong Kong collapse) and acknowledges that the UK’s leverage over China is limited.
    • "You’re sort of dancing on the head of a pin." [24:06]
    • Accepts that economic engagement is necessary, but growth-oriented policies must be balanced with safeguarding research/IP and security.

  Memorable Exchange:

  • Andrew: “Can guardrails be clear? You could technically build translucent guardrails.”
  • Vincent: “Solid.” [23:27]

---

4. Germany’s Debate on Part-Time Work: Productivity vs. Balance

• News Item:

  • Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU proposes repealing the legal right to work part-time (except for parents, carers, and trainees).
  • CDU claims the reform is needed for Germany’s economic survival; critics see it as out of touch.

• Panel Insights:

  • Alena:
    • Finds Merz’s claim—"work life balance is incompatible with successful economy"—characteristically German.
    • Defends the push to increase productivity amid economic stagnation and to fight narratives exploited by the far right. [27:32]
  • Vincent:
    • Argues the older generation misunderstands the modern, always-on work environment.
    • "This is one of those times where I'm just okay, boomerang in my head..." [28:59]
    • Warns stricter office policies could backfire—flexibility is key.

  Memorable Anecdote:

  • Andrew and Alena recall freelance and self-employed realities—no work-life balance, since “my boss is me.” [30:47]

---

5. The Science of Foresight: Interview with Chris Lubkeman (ETH Zurich)

• Subject:

  • How policymakers and institutions can look beyond immediate deadlines to shape the long-term future.

• Key Points:

  • Lubkeman advocates for inspiring, generational “strategic narratives” to guide societies forward.
  • "As humans, we are storytellers. This is how we learn... What are the stories that we're telling ourselves about the future we wish to have?" [32:04]
  • Leaders must care for their communities, not just themselves, and accept there is no single “correct” future—just desirable ones that may overlap.
  • Importance of blending science and diplomacy: science is "the last line of defense of democracy." [37:41]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the India-EU Deal:

  • “The best way of getting people on board is to trade, to have more commerce with them.” — Vincent [05:20]

• On Western responsibility in global partnerships:

  • “Energy resilience and not relying on authoritarian states is something democratic countries would still need to work on in the future.” — Alena [07:58]

• On Ukraine’s security:

  • “We simply do not [have]… the air defense. We don’t have time to develop it…” — Alena [15:27]
  • “That would become the flashpoint, that would become the new Berlin.” — Vincent [13:51]

• On public relations and policy:

  • “The EU is really terrible at selling itself to its own people about the good things... No, what they should be doing is...have case studies.” — Vincent [10:04]

• On foresight and leadership:

  • “Leaders have a responsibility to be leaders. To truly be leaders and leaders means there’s a care, there’s a duty of care for those whom they’re leading.” — Chris Lubkeman [33:57]

• On modern work culture:

  • “There is an expectation to be able to respond to emails at all hours of the day... That has been the biggest change to work.” — Vincent [28:59]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Opening and Introductions: 00:00–04:34
• India-EU Trade Deal: 04:34–10:51
• Ukraine’s Security Guarantees: 10:51–20:47
• Keir Starmer’s China Visit: 20:47–26:19
• Germany’s Part-Time Work Debate: 26:19–31:32
• Foresight and Science Diplomacy (Interview): 32:04–38:23

---

Tone & Language

The show maintains Monocle’s trademark blend of high-level analysis, global perspective, diplomatic wit, and grounded realism. Guests’ comments are candid, informed, and occasionally dryly humorous, reflecting skepticism where warranted and cautious optimism where appropriate.

---

For further details or to listen to the full analysis, tune into the episode.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 27 January 2026 on Monocle Radio. India and the European Union conclude their trade deal. Did Donald Trump inadvertently nudge it over the line? Is the United States going to offer Ukraine the security guarantees or not? And why Germany's chancellor doubts that part time work is really work. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now.

[B]

FOREIGN.

[A]

Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily, coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Alena hlivko and Vincent McAvenny will discuss the day's big stories and we'll hear from Chris Lubkeman at ETH Zurich about how within reason, the future can be predicted. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily.

[C]

FOREIGN.

[A]

This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined Today by Vincent McEvany, journalist and monocle Radio regular politics commentator, and by Alena Hlivko, founder and CEO at St James Foreign Policy Group and a member of the advisory council at the Coalition for Global Prosperity. Hello to you both.

[B]

Hello.

[C]

Great to be back.

[A]

It's good to see you both again. I think this is your my first time seeing you both in 2026. Corre I mean, I've hardly been here is the reason for that. But Alena, you return from Washington, D.C. at Probably the second worst time of year to visit Washington, D.C. second only to high summer.

[C]

I think I would agree with that. I was somewhat dreading my trip there on the 3rd of January, given everything that was going on and not just hearing the latest news on Ukraine and all the failed peace talks that were ongoing, but also the invasion of Greenland. That's almost happened right in front of my eyes.

[A]

Well, and almost literally happened right in front of mine. We spent last week in Nuuk wondering if we were going to be there for it.

[C]

There you go.

[A]

What general mood did you manage to assess, though? We will be coming back to this later in the show. But I mean, coming up for four years of this now that your country has been through and having spent the last year of that trying to figure out whether the US Is still on.

[C]

Your side, I would say that I've met with quite a lot of people. Some of them were current or former U.S. administration officials, think tankers, researchers. Amongst the sane people who I consider my friends, the mood was that of confusion, a little bit of shame and guilt, of course, but also traditional American perseverance that if we wait it out long enough, hopefully things will change. But of course, it takes responsible people at the helm to create that change. That was also quite divided, in my opinion, from some of the conversations I've had. There's either a strong blind sense of we're doing everything right and we're going to stick by it and everyone else is wrong, or there was a sense that, okay, time to actually take some action and think of what the US Is doing with the world and what's going on in the country. What's our national purpose? Coming up to the 250th anniversary of independence.

[A]

Vincent, you spent Christmas in Jersey again. Probably not the ideal time of that. Ideal time of that for year. Ideal time of year for that.

[B]

You can tell you've gone from Australia to Greenland, so your body clock must be all over the place.

[A]

That's my excuse. Thank you. And I am going to stick to it. You are now back in training. You are going to do the marathon again?

[B]

Yeah, I'm doing the London Marathon for the second year in a row. I wasn't sure if it would kind of be a one and done thing or if there would be a bit of a bug, but I definitely feel like I've got a couple more in me and the endorphins of doing it. Although it's a tricky time of year, obviously, to start your training in the depth of winter, not the funnest. You just sort of keep picturing the day and it's an amazing, you know, cities, if you've ever been in New York or Paris or, you know, Boston, wherever, where the marathon properly takes over the city for a weekend. It is an amazing atmosphere and I think everyone at least has a half marathon in them. I'm doing a half marathon on Sunday and if you can do a half marathon, you can probably do the full thing as well.

[A]

Well, I for one, will never know. We will start in New Delhi. And with the signing of a trade deal between India and the European Union, welcomed with clasped and lofted hands among India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The agreement has been near up to 20 years in the negotiating. Trade is not a field for the impatient and it will slash tariffs across a wide range of goods and services, making it easier, among other provisions, for European producers of cars, olive oil, wine and beer to shift their gear in India and for Indian manufacturers of jewellery, textiles and handicrafts to flog their stuff in Europe. Vincent, is this Basically good. Dare we ask.

[B]

It is a good deal. And it comes hot on the heels of the UK having done a similar deal, I think, around 18 months ago, which, you know, India notoriously protectionist market, very difficult to get into. But so far, all the signs are that the deal that the UK struck has gone well, particularly, for instance, for the Scottish whiskey industry. That was a sort of big prize. And I think this is a good timing for this kind of deal. It shows that, yes, you can have disagreements with a country like India on certain things. So, for instance, its propensity to still buy Russian oil, but the best way of getting people on board is to trade, to have more commerce with them. I did a trade trip a couple of years ago to India with Siddiq Khan, and you've got a population super, you know, super smart, super eager to engage with the West. You've got English widespread as well, making it easier for sort of Europeans to go in. Quite a strong cultural understanding of each other as well. So I think it's a positive.

[A]

There's been a lot of discussion, and there will be later in the show, indeed alona, about the wisdom or otherwise of Western democracies and meshing themselves economically with giant countries which may not necessarily have their best interests at heart. But for all the faults of India, especially under Narendra Modi and his slightly cranky authoritarian tendencies, India does seem like a more natural partner for Europe than either Russia or China does. There is, again, for all its faults, an absolutely entrenched culture of democracy, rule of law, etc. It does seem like an easier fit, doesn't it?

[C]

Yes, indeed. It's important to remember that India is the largest democracy in the world. They had their struggles last year and the year before that, I think, but hopefully they're on the right track. In today's world of the evolving multilateralism, I think it's really important for the European Union to step out of just the pattern that it uses. Obviously, the United States is still the biggest trade partner, but having the world's second and fourth largest economies in such close cooperation, I think it could yield positive results. Definitely. There was some criticism of, you know, America putting on tariffs and spiking those on India for allegedly buying Russian oil. That's been sanctioned. But there's also plenty of other sanctions that Russia is successfully circumventing that the US Is ignoring. There's also the sanction, the Russia bill on the floor in Congress that can't seem to get through because they're all waiting for a sign off that it's okay to vote for it. And that's a whole other topic of conversation. But regardless of that, Europe is also still buying the refined Russian oil via India. So energy resilience and not relying on authoritarian states is something that democratic countries would still need to work on in the future.

[A]

Vincent, on the subject of those tariffs, the 50% that Donald Trump stuck on Indian imports to the United States, is it possible that we are seeing not the first such example of inadvertent consequences of Donald Trump's actions? There are reports that progress on this deal accelerated noticeably since Trump returned to office, almost as if India hoped to get out from under him as fast as possible.

[B]

Yeah, it's no surprise that the speeding up happened after that. And it's also, you know, if you're many nations, these trade deals obviously take a long time to do. And for your economy to get, you know, the manufacturers and things that you want start trading, there's a lot of investment, there's a lot of figuring out logistics and you want stability. And the one thing the EU will do is provide you with stability in terms of the rules, in terms of the transparency, how things are applied. And it's maybe something that the Trump administration should reflect on, is that if you are seen as an unreliable partner and the tariffs that you're paying are trading on a whim by a truth social post every few hours, then people might not want to put in the work and the long term investment with you.

[A]

Is it possible, Alena, that Ursula von der Leyen was having a bit of fun with with the speech she gave in the wake of this signing? She called it a strong message that cooperation is the best answer to global challenges. Whatever could she mean the mother of all deals?

[C]

I'm sure there's some flirting going on with Donald Trump there. I do hope that the deal will get ratified in the Parliament and that it will go through. Unlike the other mother of all deals, Marcos, that's still stuck on a national level just because of some complications that member states do have, as Vincent mentioned.

[B]

And I'd say on that point, the EU is really terrible at selling itself to its own people about the good things. It thinks that pumping out the footage of a signing ceremony will make everyone think you've done a good job. No, what they should be doing is, which the UK did actually do some of, was to have lined up in each kind of sector where this is appropriate. You have case studies, the actual people manufacturing the products and having them do interviews, having them put out social content, saying this is going to be great for us. We're going to have apprenticeships for more European citizens and also the EU decentralising that. So work with agencies in each country that are specialists in this kind of comms and sell it to the local people as a project. Don't just think anymore. A signing ceremony and pumping that footage out is good enough.

[A]

Well, to Ukraine now and the prospect of security guarantees being furnished by the United States in the event of a lasting sea ceasefire. We discussed yesterday Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's confident declaration that this was all 100%, he said, ready to roll, pending only a decision on time, place and colour of tablecloth for some sort of signing ceremony. Reports suggested that said US guarantees are to be contingent on Ukraine ceding some or all of the Donbas region to Russia, which might have explained Zelenskyy's tap dancing on the respect for Ukraine's territorial integrity. Pinhead plot. At least according to White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly, none of this is true. Alena, do we have the least idea what is actually going on here?

[C]

I have more questions than answers, even after having spent two weeks in dc. As far as I can understand, the US security guarantees have been agreed. What's in those security guarantees? We don't know for sure just yet, but there was a lot of talk of them mirroring the NATO Article 5. But again, that leaves me with more questions because what exactly are we talking about? NATO has been compromised, to say the least, recently. And what does Article 5 mean? Effectively, it's starting consultations on what to do in case something happens. So the latest that was discussed, again, it's not guaranteed that it made it into security guarantees is that there will be European forces on the ground guarding the demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine. There were some arguments whether that territory will be controlled by Russia or not, or it will be just independent. And then of course, due to the brilliant mediation of Steve Witkoff, there was of course the free economic zone and some opportunities to do business on the occupied territories that have been plundered by Russians. But we'll leave that aside. So it's very important to see what the US's role will be in that, because Europeans will be very timid and unsure of going in without them. The whole of intelligence is provided by the us, as well as some long range capabilities and the strongest, heaviest weapons on the battlefield. So it would be highly required, in my opinion, to have the US officials from the military also as part of command and control of the Peacekeeping troops on the Ukrainian soil, and of course the Tomahawks, the long discussed missiles from the us. That's the only thing that could actually stop Russia from violating peace.

[A]

Vincent, do we have an idea, though, of what the contours of a compromise might be? Is it going to be something where there will be an effective partition of Ukraine, which Russia will be permitted to interpret as permanent, and Ukraine and pretty much all Ukraine's allies will choose to interpret as temporary?

[B]

I mean, that's what it seems to be, is that it'll be a territory that is, you know, recognised by one party, in dispute by the other. The rest of the world will probably, if Russia tries to manufacture anything from that section of Ukraine embargo, prevent it from being sold on markets as much as possible. So I think the territory will remain in dispute. It will be interesting though, France, the UK have talked about deploying soldiers, this sort of coalition of the willing. What kind of that buffer zone will really look like? Because that is the. That would become the flashpoint, that would become the new Berlin. It would be where east meets West. And if a band of little green men, as we saw in 2014, started firing shots at British or French soldiers, but they didn't have a Russian flag on their arm, but we all know where they're coming from, what would happen then? It's going to be a huge exercise to work out the rules of engagement along that buffer.

[A]

How hard is it going to be, though, Alena, at this point for President Zelenskyy to sell any deal like that to Ukraine's people? You and your fellow Ukrainians are now coming up for four years of this. This has gone on nearly as long as World War I, during which your country has suffered horrendous losses. Is it going to be difficult for Zelenskyy, even with the authority he brings to it as having been president all the way through this, to say we can't do this forever. We do need to find a way to stop this and that is going at least temporarily, giving up some of what we've been fighting for.

[C]

The Ukrainians are certainly exhausted on the fourth year of full scale war. And we have to remember that we also have 10 years of war in the country. Ukrainians are also freezing. There's been a lot of sacrifice made and while everybody absolutely sanely understands that there needs to be compromise, because despite all of the efforts and sacrifices that we've made, we still don't have the capacity. As sad as it sounds, but in today's very pragmatic Geopolitical realities, we don't have the strength to fight Russia back. We don't have all the long range missiles that Europe and America are providing. The air defense. We simply do not. We don't have time to develop it on time, although it's ongoing and Ukraine's defense sector is building up. The human resources are a big issue too. But at the same time just giving everything up and making it feel as if all of the sacrifices, all the loved ones we've lost. I'm thinking back to several friends and distant, thankfully relatives whom I've lost and thinking that all of that would be in vain, that we would just give the territories that we spilled our blood for just like that to the Russians. That I think would violate not only their memory, but that would give absolutely zero confidence to the Ukrainians that Russia simply would not be drunk on the sense of impunity and rearm and come again. Not even in 10 years, in five years. And what's also very important, one of the elements that's not getting enough attention, I think in these negotiations, the land issue in Donbass, yes, it's a highly fortified strip of land where Ukrainians have dug in and that's what prevented Russians from going any further in the last four years of them having over a million casualties. I mean, just think about it. A million casualties in 21st century. The war in Europe, Crimea is something that I think is up for a discussion because as long as Ukrainians know that de facto we are hitting a pause on some land for now just to stop the killing de jure, the land will still remain Ukrainian. According to some sources in Washington D.C. and across Europe, Crimea is now seriously being considered to be recognized by these actors, by the Western democracies as de jure Russian. And that is certainly a deal breaker for Ukraine.

[A]

Just finally on this, Vincent, you alluded to the little green men, which is what this did all start with in 2014. Would there be concern, because there are a lot of moving parts to this among Europeans, that any kind of ceasefire might free Russia to conduct mischief elsewhere. We did hear this week from Lt. Gen. Gerald Funke, who's the head of Germany's Armed Forces Support Command, warning of a possible Russian attack on NATO within two or three years.

[B]

I think the timeline might be longer than that. I mean, we can't underestimate mentioned, you know, it estimated at a million men dead. They've had to resort to bringing in, you know, tricking people from North Korea, from African nations, militias to come and fight. And a lot of their equipment. You know, whilst they, like the Ukrainians, have learned a lot of lessons a lot of quickly about drone warfare, a lot of their equipment has been heavily destroyed. So I can't see them marching into Estonia anytime soon. But we know that they are being very clever already and it's happened multiple times across the continent and here in the uk that they are simply finding disaffected young people on TikTok and transferring them a bit of Bitcoin. And then they'll go out and set some kind of facility where they're storing munitions, say, for Ukrainians or supplies for Ukrainians, they'll set that on fire. And that new hybrid warfare there is really dangerous. It is somewhat easier to tackle with a really good and effective public campaign. And in the same way as the intelligence services were pretty clear before the invasion of Ukraine in being open and transparent, saying, this is going to happen, this is the evidence they need to come out of the shadows a bit more and say, this is what the Russians are doing and this is what you need to look out for. But there's also a window of opportunity for the PR war, say, if we do end up in a situation where, sadly, yes, Ukraine has lost territory, we know that China's gonna want some territory from Russia in Siberia. Humiliate Putin for that. That is far more embarrassing that he's gained a tiny bit, but lost so much more. And when you go to places in Eastern Europe, I remember going to Poland a couple of years ago, and it is remarkable the transformation in that country, in the infrastructure and everything else that the EU does. If the EU applies that same principle to the rest of Ukraine, if it gets it in the EU quickly, and there is a dividing line in, and one side of the country is winning and is coming back. There is investment, there is infrastructure, and people are having happy lives in a free and fair society. And one side is trapped under the yoke of Putin. Well, you'll win every day by putting out those images of a peaceful, happy, prosperous, free Ukraine, west side versus the east side with these little green men.

[A]

Well, to China now, which is an extremely terse description of the journey shortly to be undertaken by UK Prime Minister Sakir Starmer. He will visit Beijing and Shanghai, the first trip to the Peace People's Republic for a UK Prime Minister since Theresa May went eight years and four Prime Ministers ago. Starmer has been at pains to spin this as emphatically not seeking commercial and or strategic partners to tide the United Kingdom over. During the United States ongoing nervous breakdown. He did Say, however, quote, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring China would not be sensible. Aljona, leading question. Should we have learnt something by now about establishing co dependent economic relationships with countries which really don't actually like us very much?

[C]

Absolutely, yes. That's why I thought you might say that. Andrew. I'm trying to be quite pragmatic when it comes to globalization, which I still do not believe that it's ended. I think it's transforming like the whole world order and we will eventually come into the new era of globalization with artificial intelligence. But I was similarly skeptical, although admirable at the same time. Yes. But skeptical of Mark Carney's speech at Davos just because he's just done the trip to China. Also to kind of hedge against the U.S. yes. It's very important in today's shifting geopolitical dynamics to hedge your bets, to try to establish economic relations with many actors, especially if ones that used to be most reliable are no longer that. But we have to be very, very careful that we are now becoming part of forming this new world order, that we don't endorse the forces that we fought so hard against, that we don't promote authoritarianism. China is still an actor who's. Yes, one of the biggest economies in the world, very powerful, that needs to be engaged with. That's right. I think Keir Starmer is right for going there and establishing some sort of relationship. But there needs to be very clear guardrails on that relationship. We need to make it clear that it's not okay. The human rights violations that are still ongoing in China. I'm not even mentioning the Uyghurs genocide, but even the British citizen still in Chinese prison. We've seen a lot of Chinese spying, either through universities or even in Westminster in the British Parliament. That still kind of goes very quiet. So all of those issues need to be brought to the table and discussed as well.

[A]

I mean, how clear or can guardrails be? Clear, I suppose. Vincent, you could build technically translucent guardrails.

[B]

So.

[A]

Yes. How clear?

[B]

Solid.

[A]

Exactly. You know what I'm trying to say? I mean, to what extent can the United Kingdom lay down the law in this day and age with the People's Republic of China? Because obviously there have been periods in history which the Chinese definitely haven't forgotten, during which the United Kingdom did lay down the law in China. But gratifying though it would be, someone in Starmer's position cannot really walk into Xi Jinping's office and say, free Jimmy Lai, free the Uyghurs you can't have that stupid big embassy in downtown London. And here's how our economic relationship's going to work. Take it all in.

[B]

I mean, you've alluded to it, the UK and China have a very difficult relationship. I remember a trip to China that David Cameron did in November. I can't remember what year it would be, around 2013, 2014. But he wore a poppy at the time for. Because it was a remembrance period. And the Chinese, you know, even though someone in their embassy and their foreign service could have easily explained it, they took huge umbrage with this. It was spun as you know, he's trying to remind us and rub it in our face about the Opium wars and, you know, you're sort of dancing on the head of a pin slightly. And I think since Theresa May visited in 2018, you know, we've had Huawei and the intelligence services scuppering the introduction of that company to the uk. We've also had the collapse of the Hong Kong deal, effectively. So there is a lot of tension between the two sides. I think for Keir Starmer, he is someone who is at times ruthless and quite pragmatic. He thinks it's better to keep talking. We're not going to go back to the sort of George Osborne, David Cameron, you know, golden age of relations where it's, you know, come in, come in, come in. Particularly as the UK is a service based economy and one that's got, you know, still pretty, pretty solid university sector, research sector, which comes under a lot of surveillance and IP theft. And that, that is something that the UK needs to be quite strong on China with. But it is the right thing for Starmer to do.

[A]

He.

[B]

Everything that he and Rachel Reeves have designed in this term is all based on growth and to get, you know, a little bit more growth going, they need to engage more with China. So they've already greenlit the new embassy. That had been contentious, but it's, I don't think it's going to be an election defining issue for them really, for the vast majority of people and, you know, an embassy of the size for that. You know, arguments have been made that it is actually going to be easier for our intelligence services to keep tabs on China if they're all in one embassy, rather than the current situation where they're dotted around the place. So it'll be an interesting few days, but we'll see if China tries to pull a trick like they did with David Cameron, trying to trip, you know, him up somehow by saying something on Hong Kong that isn't, isn't quite accurate.

[A]

Well, we will have more on that trip as it unfolds. But now to Germany and to bad news for any of our listeners therein who may be tuning into this with their feet up during business hours. The Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Friedrich Merz is proposing to repeal the legal entitlement to work part time. This is often availed of by parents, especially women with small children and people with caring responsibilities. But the CDU seems to have come to believe that it places onerous burdens upon businesses to subsidize what the CDU has hared is a lifestyle. One CDU official declaring that those who can work more should work more. Mertz himself has lamented that Germany's prosperity will not be maintained, quote, with a four day week and work life balance. Alena, we should make it clear that apparently the idea is that the right will be maintained for parents and for carers and people who are in training in order to progress their career. But should it also be extended to everybody else? Are the CDU right? Is everybody else other than those people basically just lounging around at home watching whatever the German equivalent of cash in the attic is while pretending to do their jobs?

[C]

My favorite part of that speech by Chancellor Mertz was work life balance is incompatible with successful economy. And I thought, what a phrase by the prime minister. Minister very German. I think it is fair that general productivity across Europe, not just in Germany, needs to be enhanced somewhat. There's been a lot of publications coming out in the recent year about, you know, France taking the whole of August off, now Germany trying to revive its economy. That was by the, a very respectable publication, by the way. So not just, not just European gossip. Germany is borderline in recession. So I think it does need to take some serious steps and I think that's what CDU is attempting to do. And now, full disclosure, I do have some friends in cdu, so I'm a little bit politically biased and I kind of support what they're doing, especially against the rise of the far right in the country. And I think it's part of it. You have to make the country successful so that the populists don't have anything to grab on to steal the narrative.

[A]

I think, Vincent, we should probably pause for the traditional mirthless chuckle by freelance journalists at the very notion of a work life balance. But is it arguable that Chancellor Mertz has got this a bit horse before cart that is, wouldn't one of the indicators of an actually successful economy be that it provided work, life, balance.

[B]

Yeah, it's a bit of one of those times where I'm just okay, boomerang in my head because, you know, you can't have it both ways. And I think what a lot of people and older relatives or acquaintances don't seem to get is, is the modern workplace. There is an expectation to be able to respond to emails at all hours of the day. You know, if you were working up until probably 2005, maybe the introduction of the BlackBerry, probably 2010, the iPhone, when you left work for the day, you didn't go home and sit on your email inbox on your home computer and wait for your boss to send you something and then think, oh, I must do it immediately. You know, that has been, been the, the biggest change to work. And I think it's often overlooked in the past 20 years is this expectation of all of us being 24, 7. And that is why I think people, if you are wanting people to be like that, then they don't want to work five days a week because they've already put in five days across four by, you know, being online all of the time. And presenteeism is not a good thing. And even though if they want people in five days a week and they want it like that, then, you know, it's for workers to say, okay, fine, if you're saying I need to be in the office five days a week, that work can't be done from home, then at 5:30 when I'm done, I will not be responding to anything further from that point. So you'll lose the flexibility that you're enjoying now.

[A]

This is a very reasonable point, Alena, because I am old enough to recall a time at which, yeah, if you finished work at working in magazines or newspapers, usually around 5:36, but that was it, you're done. If your boss or editor ever called you at home, it was, it was after hours. It was like, this is absolutely dire emergency, all hands to the pumps. Biggest story of all time has broken everybody in. But under no other circumstances, Gosh.

[C]

I was listening to what Vincent was saying about, you know, us working across many hours of the day in multiple time zones, thinking to me, well that would be lovely if I could just tell my boss, you know, I'm turning my phone off because I've put in my hours. The problem is my boss is me. And I thought back that this year I've had one day off, which was the 2nd of January when I flew in from my mom in Germany. By the way to London, changed my suitcase and flew out to Washington D.C. and I haven't stopped since. So yes, I would love for somebody in the government to also stop all the self employed to working so hard.

[A]

The good news is, Alena, you can complain to your boss as much as you like.

[C]

There you go.

[A]

They're not going to fire you. Alyona Livko and Vincent Mcevany, thank you both for joining. Joining us. Finally on today's show, how can policymakers, scientists and institutions think more clearly about the future? That is precisely what Chris Lubkeman, who leads the Strategic Foresight Hub at ETH Zurich, has been working on. He joined Monocle's Carlotta Rebelo last week in Davos during the World Economic Forum to talk about positive future storytelling, strategic foresight and the fascinating world of science diplomacy. Let's have a listen.

[D]

Very often institutions are very focused on what they need to do now. And this is where at the moment, with our geopolitical upheavals, let us say, and other challenges which nations and organizations are facing, you're so obsessed with getting through the next quarter, the next, the next half year, the next year that you don't take time to have a deep, deep, deep breath, breath and to think about, okay, where are we really heading and why? Because you're almost like swimming and trying to tread water rather than make progress to a goal. And so this idea of strategic narratives, where you're really looking at these positive stories of where do we want to swim towards, not just tread water, is for me the most important thing we need to do now, especially because we're in a bit of a dark tunnel, not everybody, but there are, there are many of us who are seeing the changes in our climate, the lack of dialogue, et cetera, et cetera. So we need to have a light in this tunnel. And this is where I really, truly believe that the storytelling becomes so vital. Because as humans, we are storytellers. This is how we learn from when we're a little baby all the way up. And it doesn't matter where you are in the world. Every culture is a storytelling culture. And so what are the stories that we're telling ourselves about the future we wish to have the next generations being born into? And that for me is really where I'm focused on saying, four generations from now, given what we know about climate change, given what we know about the changes, other ways, what world should that baby be born into and how can we ensure that that baby will have a beautiful life wherever they are, the, the world and that, to me is really critical.

[E]

So do you believe that, you know, political leaders have a responsibility to tell the correct narrative when they talk about the future?

[D]

Then the answer is yes, except for one word which you use correct. You know, I don't believe in a correct future because there's multiple futures what might be correct for you or your desirable future. And my desirable future might be a Venn diagram, which have a bit of an overlap. They might not be 100% coincidental. Right? So therefore I absolutely believe that leaders have a responsibility to be leaders. To truly be leaders and leaders means there's a care, there's a duty of care for those whom they're leading and really looking for the best for them, for your community and for the world, and not just for yourself.

[E]

Tell me then about. You know, I'm curious, where do you see the biggest gap today between what we know about the future and how decisions are actually made then?

[D]

The decision making takes place at so many different levels, right? Every day you and I make decisions about what we do, what we're going to eat for breakfast, where we're going to walk, what we put on. And that goes all the way up to national decision making or corporate decision making. And the variables which we have through which to make the decision can be very. Can be quite large and it can be quite small. I'll give you a tiny anecdote. My architect mentor is a guy named David Niland, an incredible architect. He's passed in Cincinnati, Ohio, and I went to visit him in his house once, and I looked in his bedroom, in his wardrobe, and I looked at David's clothes, and David basically had like 15 blue Oxford cloth shirts. He had khakis and he had corduroys and he had blue blazers. That's all. He had an entire closet, just that. And I looked him, said, david, what's this? He goes, chris, I have so many decisions to make every day. Why do I want to start off with wasting my energy and deciding what I'm going to wear? And that really struck me, obviously, since I'm telling this like 25 years later. And it really made me think about the matrix which we have to deal with when we are making decisions. And many politicians or leaders have so many variables which they have to sift through to determine which are the most important for me. So he, she, or they have to say right now, these are the factors which are going to influence me most and they have to be cognizant of this. And I respect the challenge between the different time frames. You always say there are three times time frames. There's like for me, the now, the new and the next. And you have to make decisions. And this is where the leaders have to make decisions about the now, which is for maybe the next year. Very many of these will not be the same, which we'd be think making as we were thinking about the next, which is 20 to 50 to 100 years. I don't have a really good answer to you with this one, but this is, this is for me the dilemma and why stories are so important. Because a story can be a beacon, can be the inspiration which allows one to move through this decision making process to create the inspiration we need to walk forward and not tread tread water.

[E]

Well, and that brings me to, I guess the theme of this year's edition of the annual meeting is the spirit of dialogue, which we've covered in many different aspects throughout the week. But one of the ones you were telling me just before we started chatting here on the program was, was how that applies to science diplomacy. And I thought that was fascinating because it's bringing together these two worlds that really rely on communication and dialogue. And you had an amazing sentence which was that science is, you know, the last bastion or the last line of defense of democracy. Please tell me more about it.

[D]

Thank you for asking that. You know, here at ETH we've just founded the Einstein School of Public Policy. It was just announced a few months ago with the recognition that these two words alone are under attack. We observed the degradation in many places of the respect for science and the respect for evidence based work compared to opinion based work. On the diplomacy side, we're seeing again the degradation of the possibility for one to sit down around a table and have a dialogue. It's the emergence again of this terrible might makes right mentality rather than let's talk about things and work out a compromise.

[A]

Chris Lubkeman of ETH Zurich there in conversation with Monocle's Carlotta Rebello in Davos. That is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Aliona hlivko and Vincent McEveney. Today's show was produced by Carlotta Rebello and researched by Anneliese Maynard. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.