A show of unity between Europe and Ukraine

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Monocle Daily

Episode: "A show of unity between Europe and Ukraine"

Date: December 8, 2025
Host: Andrew Muller
Guests: Latika Burke (Writer at Large, The Nightly), Philippe Marlier (Professor of French and European Politics, UCL)

---

Overview

This episode of The Monocle Daily focuses on Europe’s search for strategic autonomy amid waning U.S. reliability, tough discussions at a key Ukraine summit in London, the dramatic shifts in Syria post-Assad, the arrival of driverless taxis, and the problems plaguing France’s Louvre Museum. Panelists offer sharp analysis of geopolitical shifts, policy dilemmas, and cultural controversies with characteristic insight and humor.

---

Major Discussion Points & Insights

1. European Strategic Autonomy in Ukraine

(Starts at 05:16)

• Context: UK PM Keir Starmer chaired a high-stakes summit on Ukraine with Zelenskyy, Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The summit’s tone: worry over a US national security strategy that, alarmingly, seems to encourage EU fragmentation.
• Key Issues:
  • The US is “leveraging European nationalist movements to abet the breakup of the European Union” (06:00).
  • Friedrich Merz provides unusually blunt commentary, emphasizing uncertainties in the US-brokered peace plan and promising that “Ukraine’s destiny is Europe’s destiny” (06:11).

Quote:
“Europeans...have to consider that NATO itself may not be around as it exists today in the next couple of years.”
— Latika Burke, [07:09]

• Panel Consensus: Europe must unite and possibly build new security frameworks. European leaders are now openly skeptical of US reliability—where previously, such views were taboo.
• Challenges Ahead:
  • Intelligence Reliance: “If the Ukrainians don’t have [US intelligence], there is no substitute. It just simply means more Ukrainians will die.”
    — Latika Burke, [12:32]
  • Military Hardware: Only the US can supply vital missile interceptors.
  • Frozen Russian Assets: There’s debate about using these to fund Ukraine’s defense.
• Political Timeline Pressure:
  • Potential far-right gains in France could fundamentally change Ukraine’s support in Europe.
    “In one and a half years … we might have a far right president.”
    — Philippe Marlier, [14:20-15:21]

---

2. Syria After Assad: Hope or Fresh Authoritarianism?

(Starts at 15:47)

• Anniversary: One year since the fall of the Assad dynasty; exiled Bashar al-Assad now rumored to be “playing online video games” in Moscow.
• New Power: President Ahmed Al Sharar—a former jihadist leader—has achieved surprisingly warm international acceptance, including White House invites, due to a lack of alternatives for stabilizing Syria.
• Concerns:
  • “I think there’s been. There was a lot of hope when this toppling happened...But if we see a descent into quasi authoritarianism, that then opens up a real challenge for the international community.”
    — Latika Burke, [17:03-18:19]
• Democracy Doubts:
  • “The big question, how will he reconstruct the country? … Will he really restore democracy—or, on the contrary, shift into something more authoritarian?”
    — Philippe Marlier, [19:51-20:22]
  • Justice and whether the Assads are held accountable will signal the new regime’s trajectory.

---

3. Driverless Taxis: Progress or Urban Folly?

(Starts at 21:01)

• Tech Frontier: Chinese firm Baidu’s Apollo Go and US rival Waymo to launch driverless taxi services in European cities, including London, Geneva, and Berlin.
• Skepticism:
  • “Not at all, not at all. I think this is just fraught with disaster because London’s roads…there’s a lot of human error on, I think, central London’s roads.”
    — Latika Burke, [22:00]
  • Philippe’s take: Driverless cars in Europe’s hectic, narrow streets seem “quite extraordinary.”
• Broader Impact:
  • The looming employment crisis for taxi, truck, and bus drivers is discussed, but Burke urges caution—strong unions and social factors may slow full automation.
  • “You can’t overestimate the weird emotional attachments and irrational sentiments that sometimes we project onto these things.”
    — Latika Burke, [26:21]

---

4. Louvre Strikes and Security Scandals

(Starts at 26:44)

• Current Strikes: The Louvre staff are striking over underfunding, understaffing, and management complaints following high-profile art thefts.
• Tickets & Funding:
  • Paris will soon charge €32 for most non-EU tourists, but the panel still sees this as reasonable given the value offered.
  • “I think museums should be free for school children and certain groups…but...they are wonderful national treasures, so we should put a value on them.”
    — Latika Burke, [30:39]
• French Attitudes:
  • National reaction to Louvre theft was muted—shame limited to “people who go to museums, politics, media…the majority of the French didn’t care.”
    — Philippe Marlier, [32:01]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “We are all now members, willing or otherwise, of the cast.”
  — Andrew Muller, on the “reality TV” quality of Trump’s media management ([03:38])
• “It is a sea change…never, ever before a German chancellor would have been so blunt about that.”
  — Philippe Marlier, on new European strategic realism ([08:54])
• “Do you want a better angle? … That is a director in charge of his own reality TV show. It’s just that it’s the White House and it’s the US President.”
  — Latika Burke, recalling her reporting encounter with Donald Trump ([02:57])

---

Key Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | Description | |-----------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 05:16 | Ukraine Summit | Europe’s new security reality; US-EU relations; leadership shifts | | 15:47 | Syria Post-Assad | Fallout, new leadership, hopes and concerns | | 21:01 | Driverless Taxis | Rollout in Europe, public skepticism, tech vs. social realities | | 26:44 | Louvre Museum Strikes | Funding crisis, strikes, visitor policies, national reactions |

---

Tone & Style

The conversation moves briskly, with dry wit and sharp, candid assessment. The guests blend policy expertise with real-world anecdotes, offering European and Australian perspectives.

---

Summary

This Monocle Daily episode deftly navigates Europe’s growing need for self-reliance in Ukraine’s defense, the complex reality of post-Assad Syria, the arrival (or not) of driverless taxis in chaotic European capitals, and why even the Louvre can’t escape labor strife. As US priorities shift, the panel predicts a new European security architecture—still in flux, and a future where old certainties are giving way to bracing new realities.

Transcript

[A]

Every day, the world presents you with hundreds of headlines. What do you believe? Who do you trust? The Financial Times cuts through complexity with clarity, accuracy and global perspective. Its journalism is guided by independence, not agendas. That's why leaders in business, policy and culture turn to one trusted source for facts, for insight, for what matters next. Source FT Read more and [e-mail].

You'Re listening to the Monocle Daily. First broadcast on 8 December 2025 on Monocle Radio.

[B]

The coalition of the willing meets once again. But what is it actually willing to do? Syria reflects on a year since the overthrow of the Assad dynasty. And the Louvre has not quite its worst week of this year, but it still isn't good. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now.

[C]

FOREIGN.

[B]

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 Latika Burke and Philip Marlier will discuss the day's big stories. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily.

This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I'm joined today by Latika Burke, writer at large for Australian news publication the Nightly, and Philippe Malier, professor of French and European politics at University College London. Hello to you both.

[C]

Hello.

[D]

Good evening.

[B]

Latika, I think it's your first time on the Daily since our listeners may have seen you being patronized by the President of the United States. What did that actually feel like?

[D]

Well, in the moment. Let's recap. It was a question I put to Donald Trump, asking him why he didn't enable Ukraine to finish the war tomorrow, given, given his power. Well, and also the context, of course, that he said if he was president, he'd end it in 24 hours.

And then he said he seemed to like the question at first because I put in a prelude about Melania Trump doing such good work with the abducted Ukrainian children and asked him if he might not support Senator Lindsey Graham's bill as well, which would declare Russia a terrorist state. But then he realised what I eventually asked him and didn't like that at all and told me I didn't know what I was talking about. I mean, it's not the first time I've been told that. So I'm kind of ok. Growing up in a family of eight.

[B]

Kids, good practice, but nevertheless, family of eight kids versus sort of press brawl in front of Trump's desk. I can see that there would be similarities, but what, what is do you get a sense that he is trying to conduct this like it's something of.

[D]

A choir, not just acquire. Andrew, it is a TV episode. When we crammed into the cabinet room, his first thing to do was he looks up along so we're all on the other side of the cabinet table. He looks up and down the entire string of press. He clocks you, looks you in the eye, he takes note of everyone who's there. And then he looked up and saw there was a camera at the end of the table, as opposed to the middle, in front of him. And he says to the guy, this is the first thing he says. Do you want to move your camera down to the middle? Do you want a better angle? I mean, that is a director in charge of his own reality TV show. It's just that it's the White House and it's the US President and we.

[B]

Are all now members, willing or otherwise, of the cast. Philippe, you have been in Brussels, where I suppose it's possible to get patronized, though probably more likely by a waiter.

[C]

No, I never had the privilege of being patronized by the US President. But yeah, I went to Brussels last week and it was in fact around the same time this security document was released by the US about talking about.

Civilizational erasure with reference to Europe. And I felt, of course, this is grossly unfair and also unpatronizing and wrong. And when you're in Brussels, and I think that's really the good thing about it, it's not the most exotic, the most beautiful capital in the world or in Europe with this chaotic architecture, but it's a place which welcome people from various backgrounds. And I like it. It's buoyant, it's young, it's the siege, the place of various important organizations, the eu, of course, but also NATO. And so I think politically it's extremely important. And I think it reminds us of what we've achieved as Europeans. And I'm talking here beyond the eu, because we longer part of the EU at the moment, but we've achieved that. And I think this is something.

When sort of reflecting on the current ongoing situation in Europe and the world, something we have really to defend very strongly, I believe.

[B]

Well, that does cue us up nicely for our first item, which is here in London, specifically at 10 Downing street, where UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been hosting a summit on matters Ukraine related, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of ukra, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Friedrich Meltz of Germany. The four have been discussing the peace plan concocted by the United States with, it seems, considerable input from Russia and little from Ukraine. Focusing further the minds of all present will be the release late last week of a new US national security strategy, which elicited good reviews from Moscow and considerable apprehension from the capitals of Europe, given that said document more or less explicitly commits the US to leveraging European nationalist movements to abet the breakup of the European Union. Latika what do we imagine has been the general tone of today's symposium concern?

[D]

I would think Friedrich Merz was surprisingly frank, I thought, particularly for a German, but particularly for Merz. He said that one, Ukraine's destiny is Europe's destiny, that's true. But two, that it's an open matter, these peace talks, and there's lots of details coming forward in the peace plans that he's not sure about, but we'll wait and see. I think it underlines two things are happening here. One is we do see a proper bloc forming within Europe and I think it's a good sign that it's Macron, it's Metz, it's the uk. In some ways this is a bit of a restoration of that pre Brexit posture and I think that's positive for Europe and that's the way forward. And Ukraine will always be there because the defence of Europe is always going to involve the defence of Ukraine and Ukraine has a lot to teach Europe. But I think the other thing that's really hitting home for the Europeans and I'd like to see them do a bit more and just whinge on Twitter about this, is that the message is clear, guys. Whether or not this episode that was articulated very clearly, very frankly, very starkly, and to some, very shockingly to others, perhaps not. If you're at Munich Security Conference earlier this year, this is no surprise is that they don't like you and you're on your own. And I do think we have to consider that NATO itself may not be around as it exists today in the next couple of years. I think that is starting to sink in for the Europeans. What I don't think is very clear is what they are going to do. Aside from demanding their leaders all castrate Donald Trump with some angry words.

[B]

Philippe on which thought President Zelenskyy is also in Brussels today meeting NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte rather EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Kosta do Ukraine and Europe and this, drawing further on what Latika was saying now need to come up with some sort framework that just does not Include the United States like a means by which Europe can and will defend itself, assuming that the United States can no longer be relied on?

[C]

Yes, very possibly. And I think that's really the new situation now. Is this deciding? It has starting to sink in that the US Is no longer a reliable partner. And what's more, it's a partner which might even be hostile to you, to European interest. And I think again, the document released by U.S. national Security last week is very clear about that. We are interested. We're concerned about where Pacific countries, the Pacific region is key to us as well as Asia and particular relationship with China. The rest comes next. And it's no longer particularly Europe is no longer something we worry too much about. It's something Europeans have to take care of them. And that's very much the idea. So I think it has taken a long time for European leaders who were traditionally particularly on the center left, center right, Atlanticists, to accept that. Look at Merz, the German chancellor. This is a sea change sort of for him situation, because he was again on record today saying, well, he did not find the US Peace plan acceptable or good enough. Never, ever before a German chancellor would have been so blunt about that. So it's very, very clear. Macron also is certainly making similar noises. He's been talking internally in France. I was in France also a week ago about restoring national conscription, which was abolished by Jacques Chirac some 20 years ago. So things are starting to move. And of course, there's this sort of thorny issue of since the can't be relied on to support militarily Ukraine, we need to do it ourselves. So.

Where do we find the weapons? Where do we find the money? So I think a big discussion is ongoing in Europe about maybe using frozen Russian assets, which would seem fair to me and to a lot of people, given that it's it's.

Illegal war and sort of unjustified attack on the part of Russia against Ukraine. So, yes, there are solutions.

To be reached and there are decisions to be made. And I think Europe is probably, you might think, a bit too slowly getting there. But I think they are getting there.

[B]

I mean, do they have to go still further, though, Latika, because again, perusing this somewhat peculiar document the United States released last Friday, if it's taken us from, say, Vice President Vance's speech at Munich in February till now, for Europe to apprehend the possibility that the United States simply doesn't really care one way or the other about its security, does the United States now need to think, especially Europe rather now need to think, especially the way that the United States has been behaving with respect to Russia these last few weeks, that, as Philippe says, the United States might be actually potentially actively hostile. And we have of course seen Donald Trump explicitly threaten the territory of a European country already.

[D]

I think much of this will depend on the midterms. So if we see the MAGA movement flame out because of cost of living. If you have a look at what Donald Trump is doing domestically, he's about to release a massive relief plan for farmers that suggests his tariff war has not gone down well domestically. Cost of living is a sky high issue. But what I'm looking for is not necessarily the cracks within maga. What I'm really interested in and what I have not detected is a full throated effective defence of the security landscape from the Democrats, from any future leadership. I haven't seen it from aoc, I haven't really seen it from Newsom, who's one of the better attack dogs on Trump and maga. And so what I think we have to accept is that this is a bit of a Humpty Dumpty. He's fallen off the wall, there's lots of cracks. Can he be put back together again? Probably not the way we've always known it. There might be some semblance that we can pastiche together and there might from all of this being new world order that we put together and a new security architecture, I think the coalition of the willing is one of those things that we might see take forward into something a bit more different but tangible and probably stronger. But I think Europe's problem is twofold. For the moment, they cannot go alone. There's two things Ukraine needs that the US has. One is intelligence. So at the moment, if when you're in Kyiv and your app goes off telling you there's a missile or an air raid or something coming over that is supplied by US intelligence. And if the Ukrainians don't have that, there is no substitute. It just simply means more Ukrainians will die. So that's number one. The second thing they need are PAC2 missile interceptors. That's something only the US can supply. If there's a scenario where those two things can be quarantined from the current security posture and Europe can forge its own path ahead and be ready, say by 2030, it may be okay. But some of the signals we're getting is that Putin may be willing to test NATO earlier. And I think the biggest danger in that national security strategy that the Americans put out last week is that it looks like a tacit green light for Putin to try it on.

[B]

Just finally and quickly on this one. Philip, does President Macron in particular feel under some kind of pressure to achieve some sort of resolution in Ukraine before the next French presidential election, which may well install at the top of France somebody who is somewhere between indifferent to Ukraine and actively, you know, friendly to Russia?

[C]

It's a huge question, Andrew, because as you know, the party which currently is on top in the opinion pause is the far right national rally. So we in less than two years time, in one and a half years even, we might have a far right president as well as a majority in the House. So traditionally the far right has been pro Russia and I think they've sort of backtracked a little bit since the start of the war. But until 2022, Marine Le Pen was very close to Putin, making several trips and even allegedly receiving funding from him and from Russia. So that would be a game changer, the election of the far right or a coalition of mainstream right and Le Pent party. So probably, yes, to answer your question, yes, there is a bit of that trying to achieve in terms of peace negotiation and beyond the situation of Ukraine.

Making the whole continent more secure, because as Latika just said it, there's probably.

Another plan for Putin of further testing.

Other countries in the Baltic. So Poland might be next. And if Poland gets attacked, of course, NATO would for sure have to react. So that's probably crossing in mind. Yes.

[B]

Well, to Syria, which one year ago today was enjoying its first day for more than half a century of not being ruled by someone surnamed Assad as a lightning rebel offensive spearheaded by an Idlib based Islamist militia known as Hayat Tarir Al Sham descended the M5 motorway from Aleppo to Damascus. President Bashar Al Assad decamped to Moscow where according to one report, he now whiles away exile playing online video games. Hayat Tariya Al Sham's commander, a veteran jihadist known and wanted by the United States by the Nomdigar Abu Mohammed Al Jilani, has been warmly received at the White House and elsewhere as President Ahmed Al Sharar Latika. First of all, there has been a general cosying up to Al Sharah, possibly in recognition that there's not really another option available right now. But has that been the right thing to do? Has there been an assumption, look, somebody needs to govern Syria, we might as well prop this guy up because what choice do we have?

[D]

I mean, firstly, I'm just so stuck on the idea of Assad whileing away his hours playing video games, I mean, pray, what tell is he actually playing? I mean, Minecraft. The mind boggles.

[B]

Details were not forthcoming. But, I mean, what else were you. What else are you doing all day?

[D]

I know, I know it does. It's actually an interesting kind of literature test. What would a toppled dictator do in exile? Anyway, back to your more serious question. Look, I think there's been. There was a lot of hope when this toppling happened of Assad, and I think a lot of that was well placed. We've seen certainly better conditions qualified, and I'm sure we'll get to that than we certainly have had under the Assads. I think it's been a really interesting example of, you know, Ashra has played a blinder in international diplomacy here. I think he has wheedled into the Trump administration very swiftly and very well. That's an area that the Trumps are very keen on seeing stabilised. And of course, they want a grand bargain that secures Israel's peace. So Syria has a lot of cards to play, to use that language. And I think they've played it really, really well. I think going forward is really the test, because what Syria does in terms of the Syrian government with all of that, if we see a descent into quasi authoritarianism, that then opens up a real challenge for the international community about what we are seen to be tolerating, endorsing and financing.

[B]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time, Philippe, that the international community has tolerated, endorsed or financed an authoritarian leader in Syria or indeed elsewhere. But that notwithstanding, are you buying the transition Al Sharar has been trying to sell? I mean, he hasn't quite outed himself as a liberal Democrat entirely, but he, he has made most of the right noises, even if he has not always undertaken the necessary actions about protecting Syria's various ethnic and religious minorities.

[C]

I think that's a big question mark. I mean, to start with, I think his diplomatic chum offensive is remarkable, the way he managed to be welcome soon after being put in power in Syria.

[B]

A year ago this time, a year ago, you would have got $10 million for telling the Americans where you could find him.

[C]

Absolutely. And a month later, he was in the White House received by.

By President Trump, and he also visited all the countries, not simply the U.S. so I think that that's really astonishing. He's a very skilled politician and let's not forget he's a former Jihadi leader. So all that is remarkable. Now, the question, and I can understand relief of western nations, the U.S. you know, that's the end of a 14 year civil war which led to the largest displacement of population since the second World War. So lots of problem for the West. So.

The arrival of Al Sharras put an end to it. But now, of course, the big question, how will he reconstruct the country? Reconstructing the infrastructure will take time, but that may not be the most difficult part. In fact, I think funding might come from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Gulf. But the question is, will he really restore democracy? When I say restore democracy, that would be a pre Assad era. So that will go back a long time. Time. I think.

When you look into the situation, you realize that it's a very mixed situation where people of course are happy to have recovered freedom, but it's limited democracy the way we understand it, with complete freedom of speech, with political parties, all that. It's not running yet. So big question mark. It remains to be seen whether Syria will become a democracy or will, on the contrary, progressively shift into something more authoritarian.

[D]

And I think a big answer to this question is also what justice we see whether they pursue justice, whether they pursue the Assads or not.

[B]

Well, a reminder that the current episode of the Foreign Desk is a longer reflection on Syria's first year post Assad, including a contribution from PBS Frontline filmmaker Martin Smith, who interviewed President Ahmed Al Sharar back when he was wanted jihadist Abu Mohammad Al Jelani. But now to the next frontiers and the ongoing conquest of the globe by driverless taxis that is the UK and Europe. The Chinese concern Baidu will trial its Apollo Go taxis in Switzerland this month and the UK and Germany next year. The United States Waymo is due to test a small fleet of its vehicles in London next year. This will make London the first market in which Baidu and Waymo compete head to head. Sadly, there are no plans at present to equip their vehicles with the kind of accessories necessary to turn matters full Robot Wars. Various other companies are also making their pitches, including UK based Wave with an annoying Y. Latika, how excited are you about the arrival of the driverless taxi?

[D]

Not at all, not at all. I think this is just fraught with disaster because London's roads. I do see a role for driverless cars in contained smart cities.

[B]

I thought you were gonna say it's because you would miss listening to interminable harangues about the joys of Brexit from the driver.

[D]

Right, love, yeah, no, that's true. I'm sure they could simulate that Those conversations always go the same way anyway. No, I think there is a role for driverless cars in very contained environments. So university campuses, smart campuses, smart cities where the roads are new and neat and it's all kind of a bit linear and it's not too difficult to get on and off. If you do have a problem in London, I mean, have you seen a regular central London street? I walk faster than traffic because there's so many people milling around on the streets. There's no such thing as, you know, no jaywalking here. Everybody jaywalks. The streets are kind of open. Slather the idea of a driverless car being able to navigate all of this on narrow roads one ways. And I know they've got all the sensors, I know they've got GPS and all this kind of stuff, but. But there's a lot of human error on, I think, central London's roads.

[B]

Well, the operators, Philippe, are full, abundant with reassurances that remote controlled cars will do fine on European streets. Would you be happy to get in one on the Arc de Triomphe roundabout?

[C]

Well, first of all, I've never tried and I think I should try once. Will I be apprehensive? Yes, probably, but it's something you need to try. But I agree with Latika's comments. I think it seems quite extraordinary. Maybe we're wrong on that. Maybe we're just not up to it. We don't understand fully how the technology works and it's probably 100% safe and secure. But it seems incredible. I've read, you know, reports about, for instance, one of those cars, driverless car stopping because there was a plastic bag in the middle of the road. They can't always decipher exactly what kind of objects they have in front of them.

And also I'm thinking about the poor taxi drivers. You know, you were alluding earlier about, you know, if you want a kind of vox pop, and that's very important for people like you journalists, you know, enter a cab and you get it, really the mood of the nation, or you'd never qualify.

[B]

That would be the end of it. This is a rule.

[C]

Yes, yes. But I think we. It seems, yeah, it seems quite extraordinary that we should be having this sort of cars in. In very hectic cities. You know, streets of London, I think, with the cars being parked both sides of the road sometimes can be narrower than Italian streets. So imagine this is really. So how is the car going to cope with that? I don't know.

[D]

I have to say I would be more confident getting into a robot drone taxi than I would have road run. And I know that makes no logical sense, but I feel like I would zip around faster in my own little mini helicopter.

[B]

Well, I suppose there's fewer things to bang into once you're in the sky. The only thing you can bump into really is the ground.

[D]

Precisely. And what could possibly go wrong there?

[B]

Well, exactly. But there is the wider point here, Latika, which Philippe does allude to. We are on the verge, because it's clear whether we like it or not, that this is probably the future. And we are on the verge here of an absolutely extraordinary upheaval in the employment market, because all over the world this is a fundamental entry level job. You drive a taxi, you drive a truck, you drive a bus, you drive a train. Do you get a sense that any governments at all are getting to grips with what it's going to be like when none of that is available anymore?

[D]

Possibly, but I wouldn't overstate it because if you look at the DLR in London, it's driverless. The Tube's not driverless.

[B]

It's not.

[D]

Trains aren't driverless. No one talks about bringing. No, but no one is talking seriously about bringing in a complete driverless network. The Elizabeth line is not driverless. And so I think, don't underestimate the power of one, unions. And two, there is a. There's a good example I like to use in cases like this. So in India, Tata tried to develop the poor man's car, it was called. It was a car that they designed that could suit every single Indian regardless of their income. And it flopped because no one wanted to drive the poor man's car. And I just think you can't overestimate the weird emotional attachments and irrational sentiments and irrational bodies views that sometimes we project onto these things. And why some projects that look rational and perfectly logical on paper never lift off. Pun intended.

[B]

Well, to France, finally, where there are strikes, and yes, tomorrow to the Vatican, where there is Catholicism. Specifically, there will be a rolling strike by staff at the Louvre, the Paris museum, whose remaining attractions include the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, Winged Victory, Athena and so forth forth. The sceptical observer may wonder if this is really the time for Louvre staff to be calling more attention to themselves, having recently failed in what would seem the fairly fundamental responsibility of keeping the exhibits out of the knapsacks of burglars. Philippe, first of all, given that we have an actual French person on the panel, how hard is it to get any strike Any attention or taken seriously in France of all places, because there's always at least several dozen going on.

[C]

That's right. I think simply depends on the size, how impactful they are. And some are, some aren't. That's, I would say the answer. But yes they are. I think to be fair, employees of Le Louvre are striking for very good reasons. Seems to be a couple of issues with the management of the Louvre.

First of all, it is underfunded and explains the problems with security.

And the east recently everyone talked about. But also the leaking roofs creating damage in certain collections. And the fact also as a second issue is that because it is underfunded, it is also understaffed. So employees here are fed up. Security insecurity in the reception are fed up because they can't cope with the. The sheer volume of visitors. You know, 8.7 million people visited the Louvre last year. So I think probably the French state, because it's run by the state, should probably put.

Some more money into this institution because that's clearly one of the most famous museums in France, maybe in the world. So that's why they go on strike. And I think probably.

This is in some cases and I think the French know how to do this, a way to be heard and I think, I suppose, and I hope it will be the case because I don't think. Oh, the last point is that I report saying that problem with the management and the director, her name is Laurence Descartes and apparently her management is a bit top down authoritarian. She doesn't listen, she's not close to her staff and that also doesn't go down well.

[B]

Latika, are you sympathetic or do we suspect here an attempt to either extend one's Christmas holidays or shunt around the blame re recent mishaps.

[D]

Well, it's not been a good run for the Louvre, has it? I mean, I was one of those 8.7 million people. Actually, no, I went this year. I love the Louvre, it's my favourite museum in the world. But I think it was fairly cheap to get in. So why don't they just raise the price and let the market speak?

[B]

Well, you say that they are. We did talk about this in the daily a while ago. They're going to hike ticket prices for most non EU tourists next year to 32 Euros, which they think will raise another 15 to 20 million Euros. I remember we put this to the panel a few weeks back. There was. There was a certain suspicion that if you look at the list of the tourists who will be most affected by this, it is the British and the Americans. So this is just. All due respect, Philippe, this is just the French being the French in excelsis. But genuinely, genuinely, I tend towards thinking that €32 for the Louvre, all jokes aside, is still an absolute. They won't like the phrase an absolute steal, but you know what I mean. If you've spent enough money to go to Paris, you don't mind spending €40 to get into the Louvre, and that would raise gazillions.

[D]

I think €30 is expensive, but I think it's about right. And I certainly think if you explained on the ticket price, well, we're having a bit of trouble keeping the jewels locked up. Yeah, people might be happy to pay it, but I actually don't think museums should be free. I think they should be free for school children and certain groups and things. But they do cost a lot and they're wonderful national treasures, so we should put a value on them. And most of them are tourist attractions. And you're right, people come to these museums from all around the world to see just the things that are held there and kept locked up safely in those museums. So I do think it's quite all right to ask for a bit more to go and spend some time in there. And also, it would actually put a value. I don't want to actually have a feeling I can go to the Louvre every single time I'm in Paris because it's free. I want a value that I might spend a day there, a few hours, and really soak it in, and then. I treasure that visit.

[B]

Just finally on this, then, Philippe.

The crime at the Louvre, the heist was obviously a dreadful, dreadful thing, although it did occasionally a great amount of global merriment. In France itself, was it kind of regarded as a moment of national shame? Was the nation embarrassed?

[C]

It was a little bit of that. I mean, to be fair, that element of shame was very much circumscribed into some circles. You know, people go to museum. People in politics, journalists, the media. I think the majority of the French didn't care about it. And I think we're going back to this question of should we, for instance, of the fees, you know, should taxpayers in general, all the taxpayers in Britain and France pay for tourists and other people, the minority go to museums because we're in a minority going to museums. And I was always surprised when I first came to Britain, the fact that museums were state museums were free, which in a sense is nice. But let's bear in mind that only a minority of the population visit museums. So is it fair that the whole of the population should fund that? So probably contribution from tourists should be fair. Of course, you have to set the price. Right. So, yeah, there was a little bit of shame, but, you know, less so that, for instance, if the French national team of football had been eliminated for the World Cup. That's not that level of shame.

[B]

Well, we've got that to look forward to. Philippe Malia and Latika Burke, thank you both for joining us. That is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily, produced by Tom Webb and researched by Joanna Moser. 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.

[C]

Sam.