← The Monocle Daily
The Monocle Daily
European leaders sign treaty to form a commission for Ukraine war damages. Plus: Why is Trump suing the BBC?
00:38:22
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 16th of December, 2025 on Monocle Radio. New plans for sticking Russia with the bill for what it has broken in Ukraine. US President Donald Trump goes transatlantic with his campaign of media shakedowns. And while you shouldn't believe what AI tells you, you definitely shouldn't cook what AI tells you. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now. Foreign. 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 Patty Cohen and Alexander Gerlach will discuss the day's big stories and we'll meet the people trying to mix up mixology. 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 am joined today by Patty Cohen, global economics correspondent at the New York Times and Alexander Gerlach, professor of Political philosophy and Geopolitics at New York University. Hello to you both.
- [01:16]
B
Hello.
- [01:17]
C
Hello there.
- [01:17]
A
Alexander. You. First of all, I am insanely, retrospectively jealous. You have just returned from Taiwan, a place unfortunately I have not had cause to go for ages, but absolutely adored when I, when I did. What were you up to in Taiwan?
- [01:32]
B
Well, one of my fields of interest and work is East Asia, the rise of China and how democracies over there cope with it. And I lived in Hong Kong and Taiwan a while back, and I go back to these places once a year at least. And so I had been back and met my friends and we discussed everything from A to Z and the geopolitical circumstances. And interestingly, people talked even about in Taiwanese media about the Chinese mega embassy that's planned here in the uk, which I found very interesting to see that that made even waves over there.
- [02:04]
A
That is interesting. And that is a story we shall doubtless come back to over the coming year or so. Patti, you have not been to Taiwan, but you have been to the theatre and you have both a thumbs up and a thumbs down.
- [02:18]
C
Yes. Well, before I was global economics correspondent, actually several years ago, I used to be theatre editor for the New York Times, and I have a. A deep and abiding love of the theater. So I go as often as I can. So I saw something that was wonderful that just opened last week, which was into the woods at the Bridge Theater, and it's seen it a few times. And this is really an excellent production. I'm, of course, a big Sondheim fan, but this was very well done.
- [02:46]
A
The one you didn't like though?
- [02:47]
C
Well, I hate to publicize that, but it actually probably doesn't matter because it's probably already close to a sold out run at 1A Tony. It's. The audience was wildly ecstatic. Oh, Mary. And it's, you know, very campy kind of retelling of Lincoln's wife and the. His assassination. And I don't know, maybe I'm just, maybe I'm, you know, too old. I go back and remember like Charles Ludlum from, you know, decades ago. And so it, its charms kind of eluded me. But the rest of the audience was wildly ecstatic.
- [03:31]
A
In fulfilling that role at the New York Times, were you following in the footsteps of the legendary Frank Rich?
- [03:37]
C
Well, Frank Rich was a critic. Okay, so I was not a critic, even though, as you can tell, I do have strong opinions. I was the editor. So I oversaw all of the theater coverage, both news and criticism.
- [03:49]
A
It's just one of those stories that echoes through journalism lore about the time that an exasperated producer reportedly called him and said, what do I have to get my leading lady's name in the New York Times? And he said to have replied, shoot her and put the phone down. We will start the show in the Hague, where a conclave of 35 European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has signed into being something called the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. The remit of the iccu, as we should probably get used to calling it, will be allocating reparations, tens of billions of euros worth, to Ukraine by way of helping to fix what Russia has broken. This will build on the Council of Europe's Register of Damages, which has already fielded 80,000 reparations claims from Ukraine. It remains unclear exactly where the money will come from. Consensus yet to be reached on the legality or wisdom of appropriating Russian assets frozen by the eu. Alexander, is this fundamentally somewhat theatrical? Is this just a means of appearing to exert further pressure on Russia or are they serious about this?
- [04:58]
B
Well, I feel this whole war is. And whoever's going to win, it's about resources. And they are stretched thin on both sides of the battlefield. And Europe has expressed more than once its interest in Ukraine winning on the battlefield. And therefore it needs to keep on enabling Ukraine to just function. And as far as I understand it, this money is also meant to keep the economy afloat, the war economy afloat. And the Europeans are not willing to footing the bill for much longer, as the United States have already declared they are not willing to do so. So I feel there is an urge also to the European electorates to make clear that Russia has been held accountable for the damages it's done.
- [05:39]
A
Do we suspect, however, Patty, that Russia is perhaps not yet taking this entirely seriously? Almost by way of countersuit, they now want 200 billion euros in compensation from Euroclear, which holds most of those frozen assets.
- [05:54]
C
I think Russia is taking it very seriously. And I mean, it's definitely a split between the US and the European Union. I mean, since day one, since the Western alliance decided essentially to freeze those assets. And there's a difference between freezing them and seizing them. And the Europeans are very careful to kind of make a distinction between using those assets as collateral for a zero interest loan and actually taking them and just giving them to Ukraine. Russia, however, is saying that there's no difference between the two. The idea was very controversial. It has slowly gained somewhat more traction as the war has grind on. But there is a lot of concerns about precedent, whether it will undermine confidence in the financial system, particularly investment in Europe. But there are very few options, and the others are probably even more or harder to achieve. Ukraine has just run out of money. The US Is not giving it. So I think it is a serious proposal. I mean, one big obstacle potentially is the fact that Trump has already basically kind of designated that money to be used for reconstruction. But, you know, the clock is ticking and there are not a lot of options.
- [07:27]
A
Alexander, the sums involved in rebuilding Ukraine are fantastic. I mean, One estimate is 445 billion euros. But I think this is one of those how long is a piece of string things. It is obviously morally satisfying that Russia should end up paying for it, but is it actually politically wise?
- [07:51]
B
Well, it has to be seen, I feel, in the end, in the context of the broader picture, what's going to be the peace deal, the peace agreement, the contract? Because I think we talked about precedent and I think the whole thing is a precedent. You do not want this to be a president for other invasions in Europe on European soil. And therefore, it's not just only about, like the bankruptcy, avoiding the bankruptcy of Ukraine. It's also to just showcase what are the rules in the 21st century. And I feel that's where the political aim should be lying on.
- [08:23]
A
Just before we move off this one, though, Patty, you were talking about the precedents as well. I mean, are there, I guess, financial as well as political hazards here? Because you mentioned the idea that people might be somewhat more reluctant to invest in Europe if it was demonstrated that there was some risk they might not get their money back if they behaved in a way of which Europe disapproved. But obviously, those with, well, not necessarily living memory, but some understanding of the end of World War I and what it portended will appreciate that sticking an aggressor with the bill for the damage they did can have unintended consequences.
- [09:03]
C
It can. But at the other hand, those who support the idea, and I've covered this since the war started, and I've talked to very smart, knowledgeable people on both sides, both sides of the debate, but where is the money going to come from? I mean, the us number one, has made clear it's not even willing to kind of support the war effort. I'm sure it would be very happy. And there certainly will be a gold rush mentality if at any point reconstruction does begin in Ukraine as private companies look to cash out. But who's going to pay for it? I mean, European governments don't have the money. You know, Ukraine's economy is smashed. So there are not a lot of options there. And that's the difficult question.
- [09:57]
A
Well, here in the United Kingdom, the national broadcaster thereof, the BBC, has declared that it will defend itself against a lawsuit filed by US President Donald Trump. Trump is seeking 5 or 10 billion doesn't really matter US dollars in damages over an episode of Panorama, which edited his speech in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, to convey the impression that he had in some way said something that might conceivably have incited the mayhem that ensued side eye to camera, et cetera. The BBC has already apologised for what was unarguably an injudicious editorial choice, and its director general and chief executive of news have resigned. But Trump insists he is proce with what would not be the first shakedown of a media organisation he has attempted, but his first one overseas. Patty, I don't think any serious person doubts or disagrees that the BBC made a misjudgment here. They did splice together two very distinct parts of that speech, uttered more or less an hour apart, to make it look like that his incitement of the crowd had been rather more direct than it actually was. But nevertheless, he was subsequently impeached by Congress on charges or by the House of Representatives, at least, on charges of attempting to incite insurrection, et cetera. That being the case, does Trump actually have a case here?
- [11:25]
C
So there's several different threads here, some of which are very legalistic and some of which are political. So as to your point about Trump being impeached for this One of the defenses, it seems, if this were to go to trial that the BB BBC would make is that, well, did they actually do anything to damage his reputation? Given all of that has come out about his possible incitement of January 6, there's questions of jurisdiction. What is clear is that Trump has been using lawsuits against media organizations, including the New York Times, to both punish and chill critics and dissenters. He's been quite successful in the United States, particularly with large media organizations that have multi million or multibillion dollar deals of which his administration can have say whether it has mergers, whether it's through regulation for the Federal Trade Communications, the ftc, The New York Times was sued. The case was already thrown out. I mean, it was completely ridiculous. I know that the leadership at the Times expect we will probably be sued again. And I think the idea is really not necessarily focused on winning as much as Trump loves to win, but on chilling critics. And so basically, if he causes news organizations to self censor themselves, then in a sense he's won regardless of whether the case ever goes to court. I think that's what's going on here.
- [13:16]
A
Because that's how this works, isn't it, Alexander? Even if anybody he comes after believes they have a fairly solid case or a solid defense, as the New York Times did, as the BBC does, as one or two others, cnn, the Wall Street Journal who've stood up do, it still just sucks money and energy out of your target and thereby makes them perhaps less inclined to criticize you in future.
- [13:40]
B
I mean, if you are lictageous, if that's the word, as Mr. Trump tends to be, then that's obviously a strategy and do not care for the money that you yourself are burning in the process. So I think that's all priced in. And that's exactly what you say is giving like such a tiring, it's such a fatigue to these institutions that have to, like, you know, tend resources to the subject matter. And I guess that is, as you said, like part of the plan to ensure that people, media houses, broadcasters, preemptively do not make such a situation likely.
- [14:13]
A
I mean, it's a suggestion that I'm sure has occurred to the UK Government, Patty. And if it was any other US President, it is a suggestion that would sound like a joke, but with this one it isn't. Is it possible Trump could be bought off with some glittering trinket or bauble he does not possess? An honorary knighthood, for example? Only three US Presidents have ever been awarded one before. I looked this up, they are Eisenhower, Reagan and George H.W. bush. I mean, might that actually do the trick?
- [14:43]
C
Well, I would turn the question to ask more about British politics because it seems that the BBC actually this has kind of placed it in the middle of a very kind of contentious domestic debate between Conservatives and, and labor and liberal as to whether the BBC is institutionally biased. And that also seems to be part of the reason why the BBC was so late in responding, because of it got caught up in this larger cultural.
- [15:19]
A
Fight to which its institutional reaction is to panic. That's what the BBC always does, right?
- [15:24]
C
Exactly. So I guess my question comes back into what are the politics within, you know, the government and the Conservative opposition in terms of standing behind the BBC, which is coming up, its 10 year charter is coming up soon.
- [15:41]
A
I mean, what options are available in terms of diplomacy and the transatlantic relationship here, Alexander, for the UK government? Because everybody in Europe knows that there are ways where you can sort of expect to keep Donald Trump on side and they do mostly amount to, you know, flattery cajoled. In the UK's case, it does have the monarchy up its sleeve. He was delighted with his round, you know, his drive round Windsor Castle's gardens in a cart when he was over here recently. But they don't want to make an enemy of him. So if you're Sakir Starmer in this situation, do you stand behind the national broadcaster? Do you summon the United States ambassador and say this is an absolutely outrageous way to behave towards the national broadcaster of your closest ally, or do you just sort of hide under the desk and hope he loses interest in it?
- [16:36]
B
Well, I feel in that saying, often feel today because it's kind of like a sentiment that grows and harbors and just grows. It's kind of like you need to see it in a bigger context and the changes in the American system, in the American democracy, the intimidation that is happening on all sorts of levels, from ICE to intimidation of media institutions that follows the authoritarian, if not even the fascist playbook. And coming from Germany, we learn and study extensively in school what that entails. And so I feel like this you might be seeing, if you tend to see this as a sole instance in terms of press freedom, I feel like that's too short, that's too short sighted. I feel it's a part of a broader strategy that in regard to Europe also entails the Trump administration seeking actively and supporting right wing, far right wing governments or parties, entities such as the AfD in Germany. So I feel that is the growing sentiment and the Fortifying like sentiment that that is a part of an embedded strategy of the Trump administration. So it's far bigger than the BBC or this government.
- [17:48]
A
Just finally, on this one, Paddy, do you have any sense of where this particular one is going to land with us public opinion? Because I do understand my own on this is probably or would be a minority opinion in the United States. Because I tend towards thinking if you are president of the United States, Earth's most powerful individual, the one thing you just can't do is complain or whinge about anything ever, but especially not what the press writes about you. I mean, seriously, you can save all the score settling for your memoir, but while you're in office, surely the leader of the free world has more pressing concerns.
- [18:25]
C
But we've already seen that's not the case because all Trump does, well, not all he does, but a big part of what he does is complain about his critics, is complain about the media. He spends a lot of time both in official pronouncements and on truth social complaining about the news that's reported about him. Critics. I mean, the Times is a constant target. So all of those rules which I think held previously for the most part, have been kind of thrown out along with a lot of other part of the normal playbook.
- [19:02]
A
Well, to China now, which after many years of attempting through often brutal measures to limit the numbers of Chinese people, has now decided there are not enough of them. Chinese state media reports that the country's national healthcare insurance program will from next year cover all out of pocket expenses occasioned by any and all efforts to increase the number of Chinese people from what may seem an already ample 1.4 billion or so. The concern inevitably, is that too many of these Chinese people are too old and that not enough younger ones are being born to replace them. On current trends, China's population may halve, give or take, by the turn of this century. Alexander, first of all, as a general rule, is it actually the job of governments to encourage the production of more citizens?
- [19:51]
B
Well, it has been the concern of many governments around the globe and East Asia is particularly hard hit, if you want to use that kind of language. It's Japan, it's Korea, it's Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, who see like a birth rate way below the 2.1 children per woman in society. So Korea is at 0.86 or something. Taiwan's just like edging a little over 1%. So you see, like these governments as a whole are concerned with their forthcoming or their forth being and Therefore, by the way, also in Germany, where I'm from, there have been lots of incentives. Hungary has lots of incentives, which you get. And the problem globally on a global scale is that which is amplified by tradition and culture in East Asia to a certain extent, but globally, the young generation expresses like depression or anxiety over the future and basis of income and rising rents. And I feel that's a global trend. Why young generation is not reluctant to get married, which in East Asia is particularly tied to also getting children, which might be a little bit a looser context now in the western world, but in East Asia that's still very much connected.
- [20:57]
A
Is there not though Paddy, an irreducible factor that developing and developed countries and China certainly counts as that now are running up against that. The more develop and more prosperous and more inclusive a country becomes, the more women just decide. On balance, I'd rather not.
- [21:17]
C
Well, in terms of. It's clear that birth rates have gone down in advanced industrialized countries and as they have gotten wealthier. And as Alex said, certainly the issue is very keen all through Europe and even in the United States. And this administration also has talked similarly about promoting the family. You know, here's where the issue becomes very complicated. You know, so on the one hand is more are governments providing better public health, certainly for prenatal care and health of children a good thing? Absolutely. Should more resources be spent towards it? But we also have seen a tradition, particularly of right wing fascist governments in particular that have gotten very much into this cultural question of women's traditional roles and have portrayed women as their place being in the home and as their primary function being mothers and producing children. And certainly we saw a lot of that in Germany at the time. It's been a feature of fascist regimes throughout the 20th century.
- [22:35]
A
So.
- [22:38]
C
You know, certainly the health of people pro family policies have been a feature of many governments, both left and right. Certainly in the United States, governments on both sides have talked about the family and giving economic health, you know, giving economic support, excuse me, and providing for better health care. So it's a complex issue where you come up of different threads in it.
- [23:06]
A
Is it arguable, Alexander, that an autocracy such as China is better placed to build the infrastructure and perhaps provide the sticks as well as the carrots that might encourage further childbirth?
- [23:19]
B
Well, it has not worked in the last couple of years and it has not worked in democratic and non democratic societies. I find that's a very interesting observation to take. And the Chinese like measures in with the one child policy. You see, that was when the Chinese Communist Party had a full grip over society, but still society also held on to more traditional values. Hence now you have like 120 men for 100 women because like female fetuses or babies were like aborted or killed because due to the prerogative of the firstborn male. So I don't see that the grip of a totalitarian party can steer these sort of outcomes more diligently. As in the case of China, it would be obviously the opposite.
- [24:04]
A
And for democracies, Patty, whether they want to avoid this conclusion or not, is it not always just going to come back to, you're going to have to find a way to make it actually financially feasible for people to do this, because for a lot of people it's just not anymore.
- [24:18]
C
I mean, the other point that I was going to make, and this is a point that's come up over the decades in terms of, let's say US domestic policy conversations. And I was will speak personally as a working mother, which is, you know, there are systemic and structural changes, I think, that really need to be adopted, particularly in the U.S. europe is somewhat more advanced in this that give support to working women. You know, the system is just stacked against them. I mean, most women who are second earners, almost their entire paycheck goes to cover childcare. And if you look at participation in the labor force, there is a very stark divide in Europe, where there is much more social service support for childcare and for things like maternity leave and time off than in the US which has seen a sharp decline or which has seen sharp declines in participation of women of marriageable age in the workforce. So I do think there are definitely kind of of structural socioeconomic changes that societies need to make to support mothers who want to work if they want to see, if they want to see a change in infertility rates.
- [25:44]
A
Well, now to further adventures in the ruination of everything by AI. The next casualty appears to be recipe bloggers whose works have been scraped by, among others, Google's AI mode search, which is now regurgitating complete recipes, thereby dissuading enquirers from going to the websites of the people who actually created them. Except that AI being AI, it is getting quite a lot wrong, including in one instance failing to distinguish satire in the onion from the real thing and earnestly recommending cooking with glue something, something sticky, toffee pudding, something. On the upside, this may mean that we are now spared 800 word preambles about any given blogger's Corsican grandmother's garden gnome collection. Before they tell us how many goddamn onions we need. Alexander, does. Does this surprise you? You. Have you inadvertently found yourself cooking with glue recently?
- [26:38]
B
I have not and I. Maybe that's due to the fact that we would be looking into more traditional, like, recipes, if you so will. I mean, the glue rarely features it.
- [26:48]
A
More of a nouvelle cuisine.
- [26:50]
B
Yeah, exactly. What I would. I would just say, especially when it comes to eating, there is still like the personal component of like the endeavor. Like either if you are a foodie and you go out like to find like the latest food truck in downtown, whatever, Brooklyn, or like somewhere, some neighborhood in Queens, it's kind of like, you know, that might still be the last bastion where you do not want to have like, automated advice. So I feel if you cook with a chatgpt recipe, so that's your fault.
- [27:20]
A
The trouble is. Well, a trouble is here, Patti. It's difficult as it is to pull up AI machinery on copyright violations, but it's next to impossible to say that you actually own the copyright to a particular set of ingredients and a particular method. I mean, actually, now that I think that maybe this could be my passport to riches if I can dash out of here and find a way to copyright spaghetti bolognese, but I'm pretty sure that can't be done.
- [27:47]
C
Well, you know, the New York Times is suing over this issue of New York using copyrighted material for programming AI.
- [27:58]
A
Well, and I think and hope there is going to be much more of that. But would you trust an AI recipe without checking it first?
- [28:05]
C
I mean, I at this point am just very much my instinct is, you know, as a journalist, double, double source everything, double check anything. So no, I would not trust any information, let alone a recipe AI without checking it because there are lots of mistakes. You know, we know that for a fact. Just as, you know, human beings make mistakes as our that need to be corrected in recipes as well, so.
- [28:38]
A
And some of them are spectacular. And I do enjoy periodically checking in with our guests to see how they're getting on with any of this in their field. I mean, Google AI once faithfully informed me that Pope Leo was in fact a fictional pope invented by the news media, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. And, and as I've said before sitting in this chair, Alexander, in the interests of trying to figure it out, I have tried to use ChatGPT as a research tool. But when you test it against that, you do actually know something about it often returns results which are just not even on the dartboard, like really Just as the saying goes, not even wrong.
- [29:18]
B
I have only good experiences when my research question is accurate and to the point and already so catered that it could eliminate at least a big chunk of potential errors. Right? I mean if I have like, I want to like compare decolonial processes in Angola, in Indonesia and Algeria, for instance, which I actually happened to was interested in recently. So then I guess you catered the question already. So specifically that you could hope that the sources from which all this information is kind of filtered is kind of like reliable. But then you also need to go through the links actually to see what the sources are. So I found this pretty helpful if I have a more because in the back in the days it was a very linear task that Google could perform in a very short time. But I feel now the advantage is that it gets more holistic answers be possible if you. That's my belief, ask the right question.
- [30:11]
C
The question is very important. But so is the universe of sources. So that's the thing which is you can also, and I'm not at all expert in this, but tailor, you know, the sources of which the AI is getting its information. So one would be to kind of limit it only to cookbooks, for instance, instead of the entire world of information out there. But you know, this problem that you're pointing to is just one of a kind of infinite number of issues and problems that we're going to be seeing as AI spreads and becomes more and more prevalent and used.
- [30:56]
A
But just finally Paddy, because Alexander was saying he had found it useful, I so far really haven't and I struggle in my head to get past and I'm not making this up, the several minutes I spent arguing with ChatGPT over precisely when John F. Ken Kennedy was President of the United States. It was insisting it was for most of the early to mid-70s. And I was saying I'm pretty sure that's not actually the case before thinking I'm literally arguing with the speak your weight machine. What am I doing?
- [31:24]
C
Well, so I honestly have not used it for a lot of everyday things. I think that most people have where I have been incredibly intrigued by the possibilities and we've at the New York Times actually had a lot of training and talking a lot about how it can improve our research and investigative journalism. And in terms of its capability of scouring immense databases and documents, it is, I do think the potential is extraordinary to really, you know, to really do excellent research. Again, a lot of this will need to be cross checked. You'll need to check sources and all of that. But, I mean, this is. We are living through a transformational era and we're only at the very, very beginning of it. And the technology will get, I think, both better and scarier.
- [32:23]
A
Well, on that upbeat note, Patty Cohen and Alexander Gerlach, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, to the world of cocktails, one steeped in tradition and often beholden to classic recipes. So how innovation enter the fold when it comes to mixology? In a small space in one of London's best known boroughs for culinary creativity, inspiration and experimentation abound. Monocle's David Stevens went along to Umbrella Workshop to find out more.
- [32:55]
D
I'm in a laboratory in East London.
- [32:57]
E
Imagine a small atelier workshop, 14 seats, signed, some candles are lit at the moment, a lot of booze everywhere.
- [33:05]
D
Basically there are potions lining the walls.
- [33:07]
E
Underneath that you've got a small like agave section, which I'm working on making bigger because it's very popular right now. You can't not really have mezcals. Our biggest section would be liqueurs and fortifieds. I use a lot of them.
- [33:20]
D
And instruments of creation laid out in front of me.
- [33:23]
E
Things like a Thermomix. You've also got something called a gyrovap, which is like a rotavap, so it's extracting flavors via distillation but at lower vacuums so they're pressured, so then you can boil them at lower temperatures. Oh, we have a thing called a spinzel.
- [33:37]
D
This laboratory is not the lair of some mad scientist, but a place where concoctions of a different kind are dreamed up.
- [33:43]
E
My name is Jack Allen. I am the bar manager or general manager of the Umbrella Workshops. The Umbrella Project is the overall name of the company, which also includes a few other venues. You have the Sun Tavern, the Discount Suit Company and Parasol, alongside the Umbrella Tap Room and Bridge Brewery. The Umbrella Workshop amongst the company is the off license test kitchen. It's where all the cocktails that make their way to the other bars, so discounts through company Parasol Santaven kind of get started. It's a way to centralize cocktail creation, R D and give people who come into the workshop to try things a sneak peek of drinks that may end up in the menus in the other venues in the future.
- [34:24]
D
Innovation and hospitality is not a foreign concept to this part of London or indeed the whole of the UK capital, an internationally recognised city of culinary creativity. But for the cocktail world, tradition still plays an important role. A crisp martini or warm old fashioned is all but expected by the regular cocktail patron at Umbrella Workshop. However, it's believed that tradition and creativity can coexist.
- [34:48]
E
Subverting people's expectations when it comes to drinks is a very, very important thing. And I mean, the classics will be around forever, and they are fantastic. You can't beat them. They're old, reliable, and will always make them. But if you can create something new, which is almost impossible, but, you know, you can make something that maybe some one person has never had before, and it makes them kind of go, oh, hang on, how have you done this? That sense of wonder and feeling of, oh, my God, this is great, doesn't leave you. You could have the greatest Manhattan ever and you would talk about it, but what you would be saying is, I had the greatest Manhattan ever. But if you. If you came into here and you said, oh, my God, I had this drink which had mango and tomato, and it worked really well, they're going to remember that as a more of an important experience. So experimentation is always fun. Tradition's still important. As long as you've got those framework, you can experiment in any direction because you need the solid backbone of flavors and balance first. So I think tradition is still here with us. And if you ever want to come in and finish any classics, I'll make them without any complaint and are great. But I still want to look outside of tradition. It would be the basic when I make something crazy on top.
- [35:56]
D
So what is the Journey and umbrellas case that a cocktail goes through? From spark of inspiration to menu staple.
- [36:02]
E
There'S lots of different ways you could come up with a new drink. For example, one day you're eating some food and you'll notice a combination of flavors and you think, actually, that's really nice. Maybe I could do a drink like that. Another option is you could hammer with the name first. And if the name sounds really funny, I think actually that would be cool to make into a drink. And I love wordplay, so that's how I often do things. And other times it could just be as simple as, let's try this together. Is that going to be nice? So that's how you start that, and then you're just going to work on it and do as you wish. And then when it's ready to go, we'll put it on the menu here at the workshop. And it gives people a way to try these things that potentially could end up somewhere else. So when the other venues have their menu needing to be changed changed, they change theirs a lot more regimented times. It's say every six months or so we have a big backlog of cocktails that we've had here and then they've got contracts to fulfill. So they'll look and see those gaps in that new menu that needs to be there. They have a look at the things we've had here before and see if we can fill those gaps up with cocktails we've had here. Here we have creative freedom to make what we want with whatever we want, more or less. And so sometimes it is as simple as they have a new menu, you make some drinks for it.
- [37:09]
D
So what could the rest of the cocktail world learn from Umbrella Workshop?
- [37:12]
E
Just have fun with drinks. I mean, a lot of places do, but just so many places are so austere with their drinks and I get they're trying to cultivate a certain environment, but when you have a drink and it's got a funny name and it really tickles you in the same way, you're going to remember it more just taking yourself less seriously because we're very casual and relayed back here. I mean, having some, like, fun with it, I think, is the main thing.
- [37:37]
D
For Monocle Radio in London, I'm David Stevens.
- [37:44]
A
Thank you, David. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panels today, Patty Cohen and Alexander Gerlach. Today's show was produced by Monica Lillis 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, for listening.