A (3:04)

And Emily, you have things as well that people could read. Were they so minded? As if guaranas wasn't enough.

B (3:11)

Absolutely. A lot of good things coming out of eth and it's another open source book that is free to download online if you like to read books in a digital format rather than having a hard copy, which I tend to prefer. It's on ceasefire, so a rather timely topic. It's called Ceasefire, Stopping the Violence and Negotiating Peace, published by Georgetown University Press. It's really, again, I would say a groundbreaking in the sense that it has a conceptual framework looking at different kinds of ceasefires and then an interesting series of case studies. So how did ceasefires link to the political process, be it in El Salvador, be it in Burundi, in Sudan or the Philippines. So again, a rather innovative book. Also, the case study chapters, interestingly were all written by people involved in those processes together with an academic. So even from that perspective, a good read.

A (4:03)

Well, we will start in Copenhagen where the fancy cutlery is being polished in anticipation of tomorrow's summit of EU leaders. The agenda shapes pretty much as Russia, Russia and Russia. And it would be unsurprising to discover that there was some causal relationship between the countdown to this summit and the recent besieging of Danish airports by drones, about which Russia hastened to deny all knowledge even before anybody actually accused it of anything. Among the proposals to be considered is some sort of drone wal, a system which would detect, track and shoot down unauthorised drones. Gurana, first of all, how much of a warning are the airport drones of what the future of European aviation could look like?

C (4:49)

Yeah, I would say what we are dealing with at the moment is Europe trying to scramble some sort of response that would at the same time deal with the kind of present issue which is this hybrid warfare that keeps on going on. Again, this is just one of these data points in a long list of different types of sabotage acts and tests that Russia has been mounting at the European Union or Russia aligned actors have been mounting at Europe as a whole. And then the second one, the kind of longer term issue is how do you go about deterring future actions? And I don't think that at the moment we have a great answer, a definitive answer, but we have a lot that has been out there by means of these sort of announcements of a drone wall, about further investment in kind of resilience, preparedness, security of critical infrastructure that are all being mulled to basically deal with the threat that is present and that is going to stay with us for the foreseeable future.

A (5:58)

Emily, one idea for combating such things has been, well, sort of floated by US President Donald Trump, who recently suggested that he was perfectly fine with it if NAT shot down not just Russian drones, but indeed Russian aircraft, which may happen to stray deliberately or otherwise into NATO airspace. Is there actually anything to be said for that line of argument? Or does this sound like one of those policies that may cause more problems than it solves?

B (6:29)

I would tend to agree with the latter part of your statement. But, I mean, what is true is that perhaps European countries can show a bit more assertiveness and capabilities to defend against drone attacks, but also violations of airspaces. But should European leaders follow President Trump's advice and shoot down Russian planes or drones on European land? That could be, of course, viewed by Moscow as an act of war, if you will, and very much working in favor of their rhetoric where they're saying that it is not us that has instigated this war, but rather the other way around. So I would be rather careful. And again, that's one end of the spectrum. But there surely are more assertive options that Europe can utilize without having to shoot down planes, at least as the first step.

A (7:19)

But, Gurana, is that not what is being implicitly suggested by the idea of a drone wall? Because presumably what it will do, if such a thing can be built, will intercept and destroy incoming drones.

C (7:33)

Yeah, I think that one thing that we need to, before we even get into this, sort of like, how do you deal with it? And of course, Donald Trump wouldn't be Donald Trump if he didn't always have, like, the most obvious solution, right? You have something flying over your head, why don't you just shoot it down? Right. That's kind of been the whole, you know, spiel, if I may. You know, like, you have issues with undocumented migrants, you build a wall, right? Like, and that's the thing that stops it. The issue here is, first of all, if we think about shooting things down from the air around some of these facilities, right, there will be some sort of collateral damage that could also include human victims. Right. We need to be very careful about what we are suggesting here. I think that at the moment, the proposition that has been floated and sort of the announcements that we heard out of the eu Defense and Space Commissioner Andreas Kobilius has been talking, first of all, about some of the prevention methods. So sensors that could maybe be more, say, like, kind of preemptive before we even get to the point where these things are flying over say, military bases or indeed civilian airports, then there are other ways to actually defend, right? And that could be by jamming the systems. There are even now more and more stories about how lasers can be utilized actually to deal again with rendering some of these drones incapable, incapable of actually doing further damage or harm or even getting closer to places where there are significant assets, again, whether they are civilian or military. So this is all being kind of on the menu. We haven't settled for one single thing. And whatever we are talking about, again, the discussions are going on now and the estimate is that we will have that answer probably within a year. And also with Ukraine being heavily involved in some of the solutions that are being developed, because they're also very sort of cost effective and relatively cheap ways of dealing with some of these things. For instance, you know, signal jamming is one of them. So better censoring and then kind of jamming the signal already helps a lot. But the issue is that, of course, if Russia has, for instance, naval assets in the Baltic Sea, which it has, right. It is very proximate to, you know, around half a dozen EU countries around it, and it is quite hard to deal with this. And you know, again, we are talking about relatively small and relatively kind of insignificant things for bigger military radars. So censoring will be a big part of all of this.

A (10:19)

And Emily, just before we move off this one and moving away from drones slightly, what is your sense, and I know this is a question people have been asking now for three and a half years of how serious the EU is now getting about actual meaningful preparedness for the prospect that Ukraine is not the end of Russia's ambitions.

B (10:41)

So the EU and its member states definitely are getting more serious. And you see that, of course, in defence spending. Perhaps too much attention has been paid to percentages rather than what actually should we do strategically with that increased defense spending. So absolutely, I wouldn't, looking at, for instance, this EU informal summit, I wouldn't get my hopes up. The EU will never be, I think, a defense union in its conventional sense. 23 out of 27 EU member states are members of NATO. So NATO will remain the kind of principal defence alliance. However, when it comes to political coordination, when it comes to joint procurement, collective capability, development, governance, etcetera, There I think the EU has a role to play. But again, the political will is there, at least in some countries. But of course, the EU is not a homogenous union. And already in Copenhagen, you will see in the news there are kind of legal workarounds being tested to perhaps undermine the veto rights of certain member states.

A (11:44)

Well, to the United States now, where hundreds of the American military's toppest brass have reported to Quantico at the instruction of Secretary of Defense for some reason, Pete Hegseth, who had some things he wished to say basically, beards, rules of engagement and women are bad war crimes and beating up recruits broadly fine. The assembled generals and admirals were then treated to a speech by their commander in chief, who complained that the White House stationery isn't fancy or sturdy enough and that modern warships are the wrong shape, outlined his strategy for walking down stairs and strongly suggested that all present would shortly be ordered to deploy against their fellow citizens. Here is first, a mercifully brief excerpt of Hegseth's routine.

D (12:30)

Because war does not care if you're a man or a woman. Neither does the enemy, nor does the weight of your rucksack the size of an artillery round, or the body weight of a casualty on the battlefield who must be carried. This, and I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving. We very much value the impact of female troops. Our female officers and NCOs are the absolute best in the world. But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.

C (13:20)

Guarana.

A (13:21)

First of all, that didn't really sound, despite how he couched it, like a rousing statement of enthusiasm for women serving, did it?

C (13:31)

Where does one even start? Well, this sort of story about, you know, women in combat has been a conversation that the US Military armed forces have had for quite some time. And I think there were quite some milestones that were reached and sort of progress that has been made in the past decade or so, you know, going back to Obama years and the integration of women, for instance, in kind of full combat roles and similar. And I think that those women who were serving on the front lines, I don't think that they were calling for any kind of, you know, kind of easier way out or, you know, help with their rucksacks or whatever Pete Hegsett was on about. But one thing I actually and this is another bit of shameless self promo, but in the next issue of Monocle magazine, I do have a piece on precisely this issue of being gender aware actually when designing military kit, because it is important and, you know, this whole idea that, you know, if you are including women or even men who might not have, like, the standard body, right, like that you just sort of provide, like a set uniform is actually going counter to your effectiveness on the ground, right? And this whole idea, you know, if you're integrating women, you should just, like, shrink it and pink it, you know, like, give them some, like, you know, smaller clothes and all will be fine, like. Or, you know, or have them on the sidelines. I don't think it actually helps overall, the military forces and again, the kind of battle effectiveness, if this is what the United States wants to have. I think the issue here is with this sort of ideal, and they refer to it as the warrior ethos, being one that's exclusively sort of based on the kind of ideal, right, of this sort of machismo, that women have a place there, right? They should be at home waiting for their soldier rather than joining. And I think that the whole now, the kind of spectacle of what we've seen in Quantico has more to do, really, with performance rather than anything kind of substantive. Because if we kind of dig a bit deeper, you already mentioned it, these kinds of changes from, you know, Department of Defense now being also known as Department of War or, like, dealing with better stationery, those are cosmetics. And if you are serious about grand strategy, about sort of great power rivalry and all of these things, strategic competition, I don't think those are exactly the messages you would be sending. So, yeah, I have plenty to say there, along with some of the very uneasy parallels that General Ben Hodges has drawn with similar kinds of gatherings that took place in mid-1930s. But I might stop myself here because Emily is here as well, and I am sure that. That he has some thoughts.

A (16:35)

Well, indeed, Emily, on which subject. And General Ben, of course, is a regular guest on Monocle Radio's programs. But it did stop short, mercifully, of sort of demanding any kind of personal oath of loyalty to the president. But as Guarana says, a spectacle is very much what it was. A spectacle largely derived on the opening scenes, I think, of the movie pattern. But lest we forget, these were serious people he was speaking to, and serious people who had been summoned at almost no notice from all over the world, at the taxpayer's expense, on top of which one assumes they were pretty busy, what with one thing and another. Did you actually pick up anything of substance in there? Anywhere at all?

B (17:22)

So, indeed, I think it was first and foremost a spectacle. It looked as if it was a TEDX talk of some sort, perhaps less evident, dense, based of a TEDx talks, as one would usually imagine. I think Hegseth is not too dissimilar with his boss, big boss in the White House, in the sense that they both love a spectacle and optics are perhaps more important than the real policies. And I think this speech, they even announced it in advance, that it was going to be recorded and distributed thereafter, which really speaks to the importance of it as a PR stunt of some sort. If one wanted to look at policies therein, beyond the question the Guarana just raised when it comes to women in the military, perhaps this idea of really firing people who do not agree with them, in the long run, I think there will be some cuts. So therefore, perhaps many of them were silent in the audience. And it was made very blunt and clear that those who do not agree with these policies might find themselves without a job. The second, and this was more prominent in the president's speech itself, was the idea of using military at home and considering the deployment of military to domestic cities as a testing ground or an exercise of some sort. So very much going on with President Trump's campaign promises or themes around immigration, security, war and drugs. So that's where I would be quite careful and see what happens in practice. But at least the rhetoric seems quite alarming.

A (18:59)

Well, just finally and quickly on that one, Guraana, it is the question, of course, that has to be applied to every outrageous or peculiar statement Trump makes. And this has been the case now for more than a decade. But on that particular one, that thought of sending the actual US Military into American cities as a tool of law enforcement, how seriously should those cities take that? And while we're being. Well, while we've been flogging things, there was an episode of the Foreign Desk a couple of weeks back which considered exactly this and what America's cities can or should do to prepare for it.

C (19:35)

Yeah, this is the most chilling part, I think, for me, at least from what Trump was saying, and that's that the military should use US Cities as training grounds. And that was part of what he said, that they should basically go to what he referred to as these dangerous American cities, which are just by coincidence, all controlled by Democrats as mayors and often in blue states as well, that this is where, you know, military should be sort of practicing. Not only that this goes against, of course, the Posse Comitatus, the sort of, you know, rules and laws that there are already in the United States that prevent military from being deployed and used against US Citizens. That's why you have law enforcement. But, you know, we've crossed that bridge some time ago already. You know, this year we already saw what happened happened in la, what's happening now in Portland, you know, what's going on or has been going on now for some time in D.C. even. That's all worrying. Right. And those are all the things that we normally associate with the kind of checklist of what happens to countries when democracies in them begin dying. But maybe one last thing, if I may, Andrew. For me, the whole spectacle of the this just the fact that we had over, what was it, 7, 800 senior leaders on Mass that basically were now gathered or forced actually to come to the United States outside of normal channels, outside of any kind of procedures that would include kind of joint Chiefs or combatant commands. It's way less looking to me like some sort of morale building and truly just as some sort of, you know, wannabe authoritarian political theater. And in no other country, truly. Again, if we just transpose this to, you know, any kind of European kind of setting, it would really look like, well, we have seen some clear issues in this country. Right. That we, we need to discuss.

A (21:58)

Well, to Switzerland now where both tonight's guests are and where voters in one of the referendums of which Switzerland is famously fond, have said yay to the prospect of electronic identity cards, if by a slender margin, 50.4% for, 49.6% against. This is as opposed to the physical ID card which Switzerland has issued for decades. The new electronic one will apparently make it easier to do bas basic stuff. The government has assured that the digital IDs will remain optional and that data will only be stored on the phones of each user. Emily first of all, if there already is an actual physical ID card in Switzerland, is it clear what the point of this would be?

B (22:44)

So I'm actually Andrew, a big fan of this referendum having passed just fully on the basis of personal anecdotes and accounts. So when I've had to renew my residence permit in Switzerland and do some other paperwork, I've literally had to walk into offices with printouts of a few different documents in order to do that paperwork. Whereas, say, compared in Finland when I've had to renew my driver's license or get a national id, it's just a few clicks online and you get the document in the mail. So hopefully this will move Switzerland very slowly towards a bit more of a functioning e governance system. So I'm a big fan of this. Of course there are some security concerns and one shouldn't overlook those. And the vote was really tight as you noted a lot tighter than anticipated. Of course, some of those privacy concerns had been addressed as this was the second time the Swiss voted on such an idea and the Parliament and the Federal Council were both on supporting this initiative. But I think there is actually a lot of, of not misinformation, but perhaps misunderstandings around these issues that people don't realize that living in Switzerland you are already sharing a lot of sensitive information and data when you go to the supermarket and use your loyalty card, or when you use your credit cards or you bar an airline or a train ticket. So you're already sharing a lot of information. And in fact, a system like this can actually reduce the number of times people need to hand over sensitive data. And there are also good examples, just to add one more say in Estonia, a country that's rather famous for E governance where they try to minimize the data that's shared and actually it's more trackable. So if I were in Estonia and someone in the health service accessed some parts of my information, I would be able to track that exactly who was the person accessing that information and which exact information did they access, Whereas if it was scattered in different private providers, it would be completely intransparent. So. But personally I find this quite useful.

A (24:49)

Gurana, in terms of how to both sell this and implement it. Are there any possible lessons in Switzerland for the government of the United Kingdom, which is a country which does not issue an ID card, or at least hasn't for many decades, and certainly not a compulsory one, but whose government is now talking about some sort of digital identity system?

C (25:13)

Well, I'm just sad that we can't talk about another referendum which was the leaf blower one, because there's an embarrassment of the riches here, you know, like so many referendums. And I had to get myself up to speed with this particular one when all I wanted to talk about was the leave blower ban that passed on Sunday here in Zurich. But all jokes aside, this was an important referendum and in terms of lessons that could be applied sort of cross channel, I think the motivation there is a little bit different and I think we need to be kind of cognizant of the context because at least, and Andrew, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, you're the one in London, I'm here in Zurich. But from what I understood, what Keir Starmer announced at this labor convention that just took place was something that has to do with the agenda that's been set by Reform uk, Right. And the whole thing that we have immigration and especially dealing with undocumented migrants so high up on the agenda that we, we of course see that, you know, mainstream parties are being pulled to kind of react. Right. And to try to position themselves somehow. And then when it comes to these digital ideas that as I understand in the UK would be linked basically to working rights, that's quite a different beast to what you have in Switzerland. I think in Switzerland the main issue as Emily mentioned, was this sort of bureaucratic nightmare because Switzerland has a very sort of paper based system where you do need to do a lot of things like go to different offices, Christ bureaus and whatnot or like department that deals with immigration to actually get these documents. Whereas in the UK the proposal has to do much more with essentially responding to an agenda that has been set and that is quite prominent and that is actually bleeding support from Labour and it has to do with, with the issue of managing immigration and perhaps one.

B (27:18)

Additional important difference as far as I've understood and Andrew, you'll correct us if we're wrong, but is that in the UK the idea is that it will be mandatory.

C (27:26)

Mandatory, exactly.

B (27:27)

Whereas in Switzerland is really optional. You can opt for a digital ID if you want but again in Kerry Starmer's proposal seems to be on the obligatory side.

C (27:36)

Yeah, and some have said like a de facto internal passport system that's been created.

A (27:42)

Well, let's move along finally to what would appear rather to be a retrenchment of the alleged renaissance of the European sleeper train. The night trains linking Paris, Berlin and Vienna will cease from December 14 after France has yanked its funding. Austria's national rail operator OBB had been attempting to lead the revival of night trains, touting them as a civilised and non polluting option relative to flying. However, France has prioritised making a barely discernible dent in its overdraft. OBB will however maintain its Vienna, Brussels, Vienna, Amsterdam and Munich Rome nightjet routes. Emily, first of all, how aggrieved are you personally? Were you a regular user of any of these routes or was it something you quite fancied doing at any point?

B (28:29)

So I've been, over the years that I've lived in Switzerland, I've been Swiss ified enough to turn into a big train fan. So I do take trains both night and day trains when I travel in Europe. I've also traveled to Finland by train several times. So I am a bit off upset that this is actually happening at the moment when the trend should be obviously the reverse. Traveling by train is far too Expensive when you compare it with airfares. And ironically, our governments, including the government of France, subsidizes airports and air travel quite significantly. So the comparison between train and air travel is I believe, not a fair one. And at the same time, I think traveling by train, shorter distances, say from Zurich to Paris is a lot more comfortable than by air. You get to work without having to get up to go through security. You go from city center to city center. So I tend to be a fan.

A (29:24)

Of trains myself as well. And I've done various night train expeditions across Europe and I think guarana, when they're done well, they're an extremely pleasant and civilised way to travel. But are we making a mistake in thinking of this as a competitor to air travel within Europe? Because it's not really likely, is it, that night trains in particular are ever going to be able to compete, compete with budget airlines on price?

C (29:51)

Yeah, that's the sort of, I guess the paradox of it all that some of these routes, if you want to make them comfortable over longer hours, actually are maybe more sort of have greater appeal, let's put it that way, maybe to sort of middle and upper echelons. They can't necessarily be something that's as attractive to people who are on a budget. And they're I think definitely the appeal of your different low cost carriers, not to advertise some in particular, but those, you know, that can get you around Europe for the, you know, nice prices of 19-€29 or something is still sort of a competition to kind of think about. But this is why we actually have to think about this as a collective European effort. Why governments have to be part of this equation, why there need to be subsidies and also incentives that, you know, like behavioral economy, economics and all that to kind of nudge people as the kind of whole concept would be to actually consider rail. And yeah, I was just actually in Florence a couple of days ago for that said book now to kind of, you know, circle back to the beginning, remember the book, but it took two trains. But what Emily was saying, yeah, it's kind of nice. You get out at Milano Centrale, everyone like, you know, having a gelato, you go on to this more like Freccia Rosa, you know, like you, you kind of see things and there you are, you know, like in a couple of hours, Santa Maria Novella. It's, it's nice, right? Like rather than just going from airport to airport and jumping in Ubers and cabs. So it has its appeal but again, I think it needs to be managed as a, as a kind of multi sort of actor and sectoral thing to, to actually get it right. And it's quite unfortunate that the French government now needs to pull out of this because of austerity measures.

A (31:49)

Well, on that encomium to the singular joys of rail travel, Guarana Gurgi and Emily Ezowaho in Zurich, thank you both very much for joining us. Finally, on tonight's show, we'll talk wine. Monocle Radio's senior correspondent Fernando Augusto Pacheco caught up with Oliver Dixon, the man who looks after Emirates wine collection. Since 2006, the airline has invested over US$1 billion in its wine program. And here Oliver tells us more about his job and his impressive champagne collection.

E (32:19)

I've been in this very envious job, as you call it, for around 15 years now, looking after all of the onboard wines for Emirates, which includes all the purchasing for the wines that will go on board in the future as well as for today day. That is a role that evolved. Something I was doing in Dubai anyway, working for a group company which is a wine distributor and retailer. So I'd already had an 8 year career with this company MMI before I started with Emirates. And that's kind of how I got into it.

F (32:57)

One thing that I was surprised reading a bit more about Emirates and their investment in drinks on board, the level of investment, I had no idea. Correct me about the numbers. Is it true that it is over a billion dollars since 2022? That's incredible.

E (33:13)

The billion dollars is from about sort of 15 years ago. If we look at the value of wines go on board in a year, we're looking, if we look to the retail value, it be something in the region of 150 million pounds a year just on wine and champagne, which goes across all cabins.

F (33:36)

And champagne is a particular focus as well. Right.

E (33:39)

Champagne's a big focus because it resonates with consumers. People know the big champagne house names and they're very familiar with them and they associate those names to luxury brands. It's a big part and it's the first interaction with the wine program itself. So you get on board and you're offered a glass of champagne. Champagne. And then after takeoff, the first thing that you might have a drink, you're having something vinous, then it would be quite possibly champagne. So champagne's the sort of the introduction to the wine program. So it's quite important to get right. As a result of that, Emirates has got a partnership with the Moet Hennessy company, which has brands Dom Perignon for first class, Moitre, Chandon, Veuve Clicquot for business class. And then also in premium economy, which is a very new category in to Emirates, they use the exclusively the Chandon sparkling wines, which is a winery in Australia also owned by the Moet Hennessy company.

F (34:42)

And it's interesting, this thing about champagne because even, you know, I'm talking from a personal experience, when, let's say if I want to upgrade to business, the first thing I think about it, and I'm not joking, is champagne, because I know it will be offered, you know, so it is quite a big deal actually for an airline, the type of drink that people are consuming or.

E (35:00)

Right, exactly. And because it says luxury, doesn't it? And premium cabin experience is associated to luxury as well as comfort. I mean, the first thing you think about, some people are wanting the luxury experience, especially if they're on holiday. Some people are wanting the comfort, you know, if they're getting off at the other end and going on to do business and got quite a, a busy few days and at their destination. So it sort of depends for what reason you're traveling. But, but LU is kind of at the forefront for a lot of people.

F (35:34)

The crew at Emirates, they also have kind of a wine tasting program and quite a lot of them did that. And I think there are plans to actually even expand this program as well. Right, Yeah.

E (35:45)

I was looking around the new training facilities just a couple of weeks ago. It's incredibly impressive and a massive step up from where it was a couple of years ago. I had a session with the wine training team. So they have 11 full time wine trainers at Emirates who've all been through, through WSET Training, which is the Wines and Spirits Education Trust, which is a UK establishment, takes people up to quite a good level of knowledge and understanding. They then built a program on three levels. So there's a course designed for the newcomers, the Ab Initios, so the new joiners, Emirates. So the cabin crew have to go through that before they go on board. And then if they want to apply for business class, then they have to go through an upgrade version of the wine program and then the same thing again for first class. So this is a relatively new part of the program, but it's being rolled out at quite a pace. And yes, it will result in most of the cabin crew having a very good understanding about the wines and champagnes that go on board, which is important if you consider how much Emirates is investing into the product itself. Itself, because it needs to be explained properly.

F (37:04)

One question that is quite interesting. Do you think what we drink on air has to necessarily be different or what we drink on land, if I may say? Do you have to have a think about certain little changes?

E (37:16)

Yeah, I do. It's a question we ask ourselves a lot. And actually, at one point we got the engineering crew together and we said what. There's a lot of talk about how. How the cabin pressure on an airplane is different to what you would experience being in your house at, you know, 150 meters above sea level, for example. The conclusion that we came to after talking to them was that there's been so much advancement in technology, in engineering, and the cabins are now at a pressure that is equal, something like an alpine ski resort. So I ask you the question. If you go skiing, do you order different wines to what you would if you were planning a meal at your own house in any other evening? Not really. You don't think, well, I'm going skiing, I need to have a bottle of Minuti rose, preferably in a magnum. And that's not the reason why people drink magnums of Minuti in ski resorts. It's. It's more for show and for party. So I don't think, think, really the cabin pressure has a lot to do with it. What I do look for, without fail, every single time, is a nice, strong acidity in a wine. And if it's got a strong acidity, that wine is going to hold up in any environment. So when a wine is too cold, too warm, it's been open a little bit too long, whatever it might be, is going to hold very well. That's sort of good practice anyway, for anyone. But then to know that, you have to sort of understand a little bit about wine and how acidity sort of shows itself. But, yeah, a strong acidity, not a overtly acidic wine with bitterness. And that's not what we're saying, but something with good, strong acidity is very, very helpful.

A (39:14)

That was Oliver Dixon at Emirates speaking to Monocle's Fernando Augusto Pacheco. And that is all for this edition of the Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Gurana Gurgic and Emily Esoaho in Zurich. Today's show was produced by Carlotta Bello here in London and Desiree Bandley in Zurich, and research by Danielle Lebro Smith. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily returns at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.