:00:10. > :00:17.Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur. What will the British
:00:18. > :00:25.economy look like post-Brexit? It is a matter gasworks as the terms have
:00:26. > :00:29.not been worked out, but already there are calls from post-Brexit
:00:30. > :00:33.revival of it and's industrial base. One of the most powerful voices
:00:34. > :00:38.belongs to my guests today, Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire founder
:00:39. > :00:43.and boss of INEOS, one of the top ten petrochemical companies in the
:00:44. > :00:47.world, and a passionate advocate of shale gas as a game changing
:00:48. > :00:50.catalyst of economic growth. Fracking may suit his business, but
:00:51. > :01:18.would it really help Brexit Britain prosper?
:01:19. > :01:26.Jim Ratcliffe, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You built INEOS. It
:01:27. > :01:30.really is your company. But in many ways it feels and looks like a bit
:01:31. > :01:37.of a throwback to a sort of 20th-century corporate entity. Would
:01:38. > :01:41.you agree? I don't really know what you mean by 20th century. It has
:01:42. > :01:46.been a lot of hard work. I'm sure it has. First of all, you have built it
:01:47. > :01:51.on petrochemicals. It is a carbon -based company. Yes. That is sort of
:01:52. > :01:57.20th rather than 21st-century, isn't it? Well, there is a lot of talk
:01:58. > :02:01.about the carbon economy and so on, but at the end of the day, chemicals
:02:02. > :02:05.are used in just about everything that we use. So... And as far as you
:02:06. > :02:09.are concerned, that will be the case forever? Well, it is difficult to
:02:10. > :02:14.imagine things being made without chemicals, whether it is textiles or
:02:15. > :02:17.iPhones or drugs or cosmetics, they all require chemicals. It is a
:02:18. > :02:24.fundamental building blocks products that we use. All consumables. The
:02:25. > :02:27.other thing that you have done is build your company buyer, innocence,
:02:28. > :02:31.adopting a pretty ruthless, some might have used the word asset
:02:32. > :02:35.stripping in a different era, but you have taken companies that were
:02:36. > :02:38.not doing well, parts of bigger conglomerates, some of the biggest
:02:39. > :02:42.chemical companies in the world, you have persuaded to sell them off to
:02:43. > :02:46.you, you have cut costs, made them much more efficient, and you have
:02:47. > :02:49.turned yourself into a business that has taken overly ducklings and
:02:50. > :02:55.turned them into something else. There is truth in parts of what you
:02:56. > :02:58.say. What we have essentially done years, we have bought unfashionable
:02:59. > :03:04.chemical companies, companies which have a degree of cyclicality about
:03:05. > :03:08.them, which public companies do not like, they like things to be more
:03:09. > :03:10.predictable. We have taken this unfashionable businesses and have
:03:11. > :03:13.tried to run them better. Asset stripping I do not think is
:03:14. > :03:17.relevant, because we have not stripped or sold off the assets. We
:03:18. > :03:23.do not sell things. We have focused on investing in, expanding them,
:03:24. > :03:26.trying to run them better, trying to run in with cost effectiveness so
:03:27. > :03:30.that they are competitive, and grow them. Most of the businesses in
:03:31. > :03:33.INEOS of grown substantially over the years. What we try to do is
:03:34. > :03:37.double the profitability of a business in five years. Which is
:03:38. > :03:41.pretty astounding. And it has paid off. I mean, you have got operations
:03:42. > :03:45.all over the world. The annual turnover of the whole group... It
:03:46. > :03:50.depends on the oil price, but about $40 billion or $50 billion. Pretty
:03:51. > :03:57.astounding. Why are you now so preoccupied with shale gas and with
:03:58. > :04:04.fracking? Particularly in the UK. Preoccupied is a strong word. It is
:04:05. > :04:09.one of the legs of INEOS. You need to step Kbit into our American
:04:10. > :04:17.operations, which have benefited enormously from shale gas. -- step
:04:18. > :04:21.back a bit. Chemicals is one of the biggest businesses in the world.
:04:22. > :04:25.Chemicals derived from either oil or gas. That is the building block for
:04:26. > :04:28.all chemicals. And of course when shale gas came along in America it
:04:29. > :04:32.reduced the cost of raw materials to chemicals enormously, and we have
:04:33. > :04:35.benefited from that in the United States. We have been on the
:04:36. > :04:41.receiving end of the benefits of shale gas. But we do have this
:04:42. > :04:45.recognition that in the UK, the UK has sat on a lot of hydrocarbons.
:04:46. > :04:49.There is lots of coal, oil, gas. There is clearly lots of shale
:04:50. > :04:55.kicking around in the UK. We have assets in the UK which would benefit
:04:56. > :04:58.from shale. You have said that if we do not issue shale, it is difficult
:04:59. > :05:02.to see how the UK can remain competitive. That is a pretty big
:05:03. > :05:08.claim. You are sort of linking future growth prospects of the UK
:05:09. > :05:11.economy... In manufacturing. Well, you're implication as well is that
:05:12. > :05:14.there needs to be a rebalancing of the British economy towards its
:05:15. > :05:18.industrial and manufacturing base and away from financial services and
:05:19. > :05:21.some of the things that held sway in the late 20th century. Manufacturing
:05:22. > :05:25.is important in the UK. It is important to the north of England,
:05:26. > :05:28.and it gives diversity to the economy. Otherwise you just end up
:05:29. > :05:32.with a services economy. Manufacturing, Fran number of
:05:33. > :05:37.reasons, has collapsed over the last 20 years in the UK. -- Faure number.
:05:38. > :05:40.Coming back to fracking, if you are saying that we cannot massively
:05:41. > :05:44.expand the Manufacturing base without embracing many -- without
:05:45. > :05:47.embracing fracking, that puts a big load on a policy which the
:05:48. > :05:50.government is half-heartedly Philipp but which the public in the UK
:05:51. > :05:56.clearly doesn't want. -- half-heartedly pressuring. What I
:05:57. > :06:00.have said is that if you look at the evidence in the US, the evidence in
:06:01. > :06:04.the US is that shale has been very successful. On the back of shale,
:06:05. > :06:08.which has reduced the cost of gas by 75% in the US, so that they are now
:06:09. > :06:12.very competitive on energy costs, it has encouraged huge amounts of
:06:13. > :06:16.investment in downstream industries. $140 billion of investment alone in
:06:17. > :06:20.chemicals. It is not just shale alone in the US that has promoted
:06:21. > :06:23.investment and jobs. It is what it has done to the energy equation,
:06:24. > :06:30.which is then promoted jobs downstream. Right... So that is what
:06:31. > :06:34.I am saying. No, and I understand the message were picking up from the
:06:35. > :06:38.US. But one obvious point is that the context of the US and the U.K.'s
:06:39. > :06:42.very different. The US is a vast land, three and a half thousand
:06:43. > :06:46.miles wide, where many of the states where the gas locked up in the rock
:06:47. > :06:48.are not very well populated, and where the industrialised fracking
:06:49. > :06:53.operations can continue without disturbing major population centres.
:06:54. > :06:57.If you go to the US and you look at where the fracking is, I do not
:06:58. > :07:02.think it is that much different from the UK. Really? Yeah. Dulles
:07:03. > :07:05.airport, next to schools, you would be surprised where they are
:07:06. > :07:08.fracking. They have got a very comfortable with it because they
:07:09. > :07:12.have now been doing it for ten years. We have drilled one well in
:07:13. > :07:17.the UK. They have drilled 1 million wells. The evidence is that it has
:07:18. > :07:19.in very successful and it has not been the environmental safety
:07:20. > :07:22.catastrophe that people are concerned about in the UK. I
:07:23. > :07:26.understand the concerns. But the evidence in the US... Well, the
:07:27. > :07:30.evidence in the US is ambiguous, I think, to say the least. I was
:07:31. > :07:36.looking at a very recent report, put together my Madeline Finkel at PSE
:07:37. > :07:39.Health Energy in New York. They say that the available science raises
:07:40. > :07:42.substantial questions about the potential for harm to health, and
:07:43. > :07:44.people living near drilling sites are presenting with symptoms,
:07:45. > :07:49.including skin rashes, nausea, abdominal painful stop that could go
:07:50. > :07:53.on. There is many more. They say that this needs further
:07:54. > :07:57.investigation. No, I think the evidence in the United States is
:07:58. > :07:59.that it has been embraced, predominantly by the local
:08:00. > :08:03.populations, because it has brought investment and jobs. It has reduced
:08:04. > :08:10.the cost of energy, and therefore it has brought further jobs, because it
:08:11. > :08:14.has encouraged other industries to come in. The environmental and
:08:15. > :08:17.health problems have not been there. Occasionally you get issues, but in
:08:18. > :08:20.every industry you will get incidents. It is like a puncture in
:08:21. > :08:25.the car. You need to change tyres regular. Chemicals is no different
:08:26. > :08:30.in that regard. But in the United States it has predominantly been
:08:31. > :08:33.embraced. Well, it is interesting. Obviously you have a stake in the
:08:34. > :08:38.industry, because as you say, you have to rely on it and you want to
:08:39. > :08:42.see it more in the UK. There are some people inside the industry, I
:08:43. > :08:44.don't know if you know him, but Mark Boling, the executive VP of
:08:45. > :08:49.south-western energy, which is involved in fracking, as a bit of a
:08:50. > :08:53.mea culpa is says, we need to figure out how to do better on what impact,
:08:54. > :08:58.surface supply, water in pact, drilling locations. We didn't come
:08:59. > :09:01.out and say that there were risks and obstacles, and we should have
:09:02. > :09:05.done. So he is saying that we haven't done a good enough job. I
:09:06. > :09:09.think what he is saying is that it has been a learning process, which
:09:10. > :09:13.is what happens in every industry that is new. Shale is a new
:09:14. > :09:17.industry. It is ten years old, but if I look at the United States from
:09:18. > :09:21.a chemicals point of view, it is the most highly regulated place that we
:09:22. > :09:25.manufacturing. -- Manufacturer in. Because we are dealing with
:09:26. > :09:30.flammable, explosive, toxic chemicals all the time. It is
:09:31. > :09:33.highly, highly regulated. America is number one in the world in terms of
:09:34. > :09:37.its regular Asian policies. I do not see that it is any different in
:09:38. > :09:41.respect to shale. They would not allow shale if it was not say. But
:09:42. > :09:44.it is not perfect, humans are not infallible and systems are not
:09:45. > :09:47.infallible connoisseur from time to time you'll have issues like you do
:09:48. > :09:51.in the chemicals industry. You would know as well as I do that many
:09:52. > :09:56.people who live close to the fracking sites have been given
:09:57. > :10:02.money, in the United States, but they have also been signed to --
:10:03. > :10:05.asked to sign "Gagging clauses", which means that whatever health
:10:06. > :10:09.problems they might experience, they have made a pledge to keep it
:10:10. > :10:14.confidential. That worries a lot of people. Well, I wouldn't agree with
:10:15. > :10:17.that. I don't think that is inappropriate behaviour, to be
:10:18. > :10:21.honest. I am not aware of it, but if that is going on, it obviously not
:10:22. > :10:28.appropriate. On the flip side of this coin, if there are 50 shales in
:10:29. > :10:31.America, roughly, and one of them is underneath Pittsburgh in
:10:32. > :10:35.Pennsylvania, that is less than ten years old, and today it is producing
:10:36. > :10:40.double the amount of gas that the UK consumers. In a very, very short
:10:41. > :10:43.period of time. If you look at the UK, the UK is running out of gas.
:10:44. > :10:48.Gas is our primary energy source. Where do we go when the Northsea
:10:49. > :10:52.runs out? Well, there is a lot of gas in the world. The world gas
:10:53. > :10:56.price has come down, and not least you have exploited what is happening
:10:57. > :11:02.in the US by shipping gas. But where does the gas go? My point is, does
:11:03. > :11:04.the UK really need, on a densely populated, small Island, where there
:11:05. > :11:10.are concerns amongst the public, whatever you say about the safety
:11:11. > :11:14.record, does the UK need to exploit the gas locked in its rock when
:11:15. > :11:17.there is plenty of gas from the US, Norway and many other places, which
:11:18. > :11:21.can be bought on the open market? Well, there isn't that much gas. It
:11:22. > :11:25.is difficult to ship because you need to liquefied and get down two
:11:26. > :11:33.-160 degrees. It is a major investment. You are doing it. I am
:11:34. > :11:37.less than 1% of UK gas. It is not gas consumes for heating at home, it
:11:38. > :11:43.is gas bar a chemical plant. It is on a ghastly different scale. At the
:11:44. > :11:47.moment the gas options in the UK are either Russian gas, or LNG in big
:11:48. > :11:50.ships. But that is lots of the chips, and there is no competitive
:11:51. > :11:54.advantage to shipping gas in big ships. It is quite extensive. If you
:11:55. > :11:57.look at the UK today for energy, it is totally dependent on gas, which
:11:58. > :12:02.predominately comes today from the Northsea, but is very much in
:12:03. > :12:05.decline, or from nuclear, and we have an ageing fleet of nuclear
:12:06. > :12:09.power stations which are all destined for closure. A final
:12:10. > :12:14.thought on fracking, then. I think INEOS Group have declared an aim to
:12:15. > :12:18.become Britain's largest buyer in shale gas production. Obviously from
:12:19. > :12:22.a slow start, it is I do not think you are drilling any at the moment,
:12:23. > :12:25.and those sites in the north of England which other companies have
:12:26. > :12:28.begun to explore, there have in huge delays, planning applications have
:12:29. > :12:32.been through the courts, et cetera. The British public would like to
:12:33. > :12:38.know from you today. Do you still believe that the potential you see
:12:39. > :12:41.in the UK for, you know, very serious industrialised shale gas
:12:42. > :12:44.production, is going to be fulfilled? That promise will be
:12:45. > :12:51.fulfilled? I can't promise that because we need to find, the process
:12:52. > :12:55.we are going through at the moment, the next stage of development, is to
:12:56. > :12:58.find out what is down there. We don't know yet. We have some
:12:59. > :13:03.preliminary data that was done looking for: in the UK, and oil in
:13:04. > :13:09.certain parts. What we need to do is do some seismic, which is, like,
:13:10. > :13:14.x-ray ultrasound works, non-invasive work. Then we need to drill some
:13:15. > :13:20.exploratory wells and take some samples. And that process will take
:13:21. > :13:24.us through to the end of 2017. Let's talk now about your view of how the
:13:25. > :13:30.UK can grow, and certainly can rebalance towards a great role for
:13:31. > :13:36.manufacturing and traditional industrial activity. INEOS does
:13:37. > :13:40.provide thousands of jobs, not least in Scotland right now. You are a
:13:41. > :13:44.private company. Your turnover is many tens of billions of pounds
:13:45. > :13:48.every year, but you are still a private company. Why are you a
:13:49. > :13:51.private company? Because it means you are much less transparent,
:13:52. > :13:57.arguably much less accountable, then if you are publicly listed.
:13:58. > :14:03.Well I think you have to look at the flipside. Why would I do not want to
:14:04. > :14:08.be a private company? Why would I wish to be a public company? Because
:14:09. > :14:11.to be a public company I would be so have to sell equity and I have no
:14:12. > :14:15.interest in selling equity. You would very much like to keep control
:14:16. > :14:18.your own hands. Well, some companies are private, in terms of financing
:14:19. > :14:21.we use the public debt markets rather than the public equity
:14:22. > :14:25.markets and there are lots large private companies in the world. Jon
:14:26. > :14:31.Lewis is one. Indeed there are. I just wonder whether you feel the
:14:32. > :14:33.debate that the Prime Minister has prompted, in a sense, about
:14:34. > :14:37.corporate governance, about inequality between the pay of the
:14:38. > :14:42.very top business leaders including people such as yourself and the
:14:43. > :14:45.average pay of shop or workers, and her desire to see the gap between
:14:46. > :14:50.the two close somewhat. Do you think that is relevant to you? Or do you
:14:51. > :14:54.think I run my own company my own way, I am complete the private and
:14:55. > :14:57.that has got nothing to do with me? Well, no, I would say in our
:14:58. > :15:01.business people are extremely... You know, you want skilled workers in a
:15:02. > :15:04.chemical business because it requires certain levels of skill to
:15:05. > :15:08.operate chemical plants, as I'm sure you can imagine. So, you know, what
:15:09. > :15:15.is important to us is to attract good quality people. In doing so, we
:15:16. > :15:19.pay market rate for... For the people to do those jobs well. In a
:15:20. > :15:23.way it is not just about paying market rates. It is about thinking
:15:24. > :15:26.about the whole sort of piece of your company, and the messages you
:15:27. > :15:31.want to send about equality and the way the workforce is
:15:32. > :15:36.compartmentalised or not. I mean, for example, here is a fascinating
:15:37. > :15:40.stat. 20 years ago the average CEO made 40 times as much as the average
:15:41. > :15:46.worker in his or her company. Now the ratio between the two is 180. Do
:15:47. > :15:52.you happen to know what is in your company? No idea. I mean, what was
:15:53. > :15:57.your take-home package last year? Absolutely no idea. I don't know.
:15:58. > :16:02.You are the boss, you probably do no but you probably don't want to tell
:16:03. > :16:06.me. No, I don't think I do know, actually. But I am in equities I am
:16:07. > :16:09.a shareholder as well as an employee. You have to be careful you
:16:10. > :16:13.don't mix those two different things. Well, I take that point, but
:16:14. > :16:17.nonetheless, you don't even need to tell me anyway, because you are a
:16:18. > :16:24.completely private company and you are the boss and you can do at you
:16:25. > :16:28.like. That is the point I am getting out. Do you see... Also, you know, I
:16:29. > :16:32.started life in a council house in Manchester. I have worked quite hard
:16:33. > :16:35.to get where I am today and I don't feel particularly hirsute about the
:16:36. > :16:38.fact that I have been quite successful. I have paid my taxes,
:16:39. > :16:42.INEOS pays its taxes and I have worked pretty hard for those 50
:16:43. > :16:46.years to get here. And I don't see a problem with that. It is quite...
:16:47. > :16:49.That opportunity is open to everyone on the planet. You look at...
:16:50. > :16:54.America embraces that concept much more warmly than we tend to do in
:16:55. > :16:58.the UK. We get a bit green eyed about someone who has been
:16:59. > :17:02.successful in the UK. Well, in America they laud people a little
:17:03. > :17:07.bit more who have started at the bottom. And INEOS, anyone who
:17:08. > :17:11.started at the bottom with INEOS, they have the same opportunity to
:17:12. > :17:15.get to the top is anyone else. This is interesting, because you are one
:17:16. > :17:19.of Britain's most successful businessmen, and indeed one of
:17:20. > :17:23.Britain's richest businessman and Theresa May are sending out this
:17:24. > :17:26.message, they want to reassess and rethink the way corporate Britain
:17:27. > :17:29.works and they are, without necessarily using the specific
:17:30. > :17:33.phrase but they are revising this idea about the unacceptable face of
:17:34. > :17:40.capitalism. Do you think there may be barking up the wrong tree? I
:17:41. > :17:43.think they need to be a little bit careful that because maybe there has
:17:44. > :17:46.been one or two pieces of misbehaviour that they don't tar
:17:47. > :17:52.everybody with the same brush. Because, you know, it... There are,
:17:53. > :17:56.there always are in life, there is the odd bad Apple. You don't have
:17:57. > :18:03.too assume that everywhere. And INEOS, I think we run a very
:18:04. > :18:09.respectable problem, and rerun it ethically. I don't need lots and
:18:10. > :18:14.lots of regulation and rules to run it. And as long as you are private
:18:15. > :18:20.you can absolutely do it the way you want. Let's talk about Brexit. It's
:18:21. > :18:24.fair to say you are one of the most successful business leaders to be
:18:25. > :18:27.behind Brexit, support Brexit. Many other business leaders in the sort
:18:28. > :18:32.of boardrooms, the corporate sector, seem convinced it is going to be
:18:33. > :18:37.very bad for Britain. Why are you out of step with them all why are
:18:38. > :18:42.they out of step with you? Well, I think... I was always, I wasn't a
:18:43. > :18:48.strong Brexiteer, but equally I wasn't remain, either. How did you
:18:49. > :18:53.vote? I voted to leave. I was clear on that, but not... I wasn't, I
:18:54. > :18:57.didn't get too excited about it. What I was always of the view that I
:18:58. > :19:02.thought that the Common Market was a good thing. You know, open trade
:19:03. > :19:07.across all borders and no barriers, taxes and tariffs, that sort of
:19:08. > :19:12.thing. But the United States of Europe was not a concept I was ever
:19:13. > :19:15.comfortable with. I have been looking at some of the things you
:19:16. > :19:19.said, because the press was very interested in what you said through
:19:20. > :19:23.the campaign, and you seem to be saying that Norway would be a good
:19:24. > :19:27.model let you like the look of, that is, being outside the EU and its
:19:28. > :19:30.rules and regulations, but being in the European Economic Area. And you
:19:31. > :19:34.said that, you know, and always seems to me to have access to EU
:19:35. > :19:42.markets without the expensive EU bureaucracy. I know they pay some
:19:43. > :19:47.taxes. Norway has to abide by the rules and it has to pay into the EU,
:19:48. > :19:51.Frank Lee, almost as much per capita as the UK. The point I was making
:19:52. > :19:54.was slightly different. We have two identical gas crackers in Scotland
:19:55. > :19:59.and Norway. So one is in, one is out, and in terms of their ability
:20:00. > :20:03.to sell into the market, there is absolutely no sense in mainland
:20:04. > :20:07.Europe that we would rather buy from Grangemouth in Scotland than Norway,
:20:08. > :20:12.because Grangemouth is in and Scotland is out. They are just
:20:13. > :20:18.interested in a decent price, decent service. I guess the point, Mr
:20:19. > :20:21.Ratcliffe, is that there is no possibility that Britain can have a
:20:22. > :20:26.Norway style arrangement, that is full access to the European single
:20:27. > :20:30.market, as Norway has, without accepting all of the quote unquote
:20:31. > :20:36.four killers of the European Union's rules, one of which is the free
:20:37. > :20:40.movement of people -- pillars. Norway accepts that. Our politicians
:20:41. > :20:44.in the current government say they will not accept that, so it is not
:20:45. > :20:49.going to be on the table. Does that make you second-guess your decision
:20:50. > :20:52.to support Brexit? No, I think Brexit was the best answer for the
:20:53. > :20:56.UK and we will find the right solution at the end of the day as
:20:57. > :20:59.long as we negotiate sensibly. It wasn't just about markets, it was
:21:00. > :21:02.also about sovereignty, and of course, that people are very
:21:03. > :21:05.uncomfortable with the loss of sovereignty. The idea of a Common
:21:06. > :21:09.Market was about a Common Market, not about loss of sovereignty to a
:21:10. > :21:11.group of people who are unidentifiable to the British
:21:12. > :21:15.people, and I didn't like the idea... You know, I think the UK
:21:16. > :21:19.should make its own decisions about how it runs its economy and its
:21:20. > :21:22.country, and what have you, but the idea of having a Common Market,
:21:23. > :21:28.whether local market is open to everybody, is... Understood, but I
:21:29. > :21:31.am just interested, because you have a voice of influence, you are a
:21:32. > :21:35.significant business leader and right now the debate is hard Brexit,
:21:36. > :21:40.soft Brexit, what should Theresa May and her government actually look for
:21:41. > :21:45.in the detailed negotiation? In a sense, can Britain afford a hard
:21:46. > :21:48.Brexit which gives us no preferential access to the single
:21:49. > :21:53.market and the customs union, and what is your view on that? Well,
:21:54. > :21:58.I... You know, at the end of the day it will be negotiation. It will be a
:21:59. > :22:02.whole of negotiation, negotiations, but primarily it is going to be a
:22:03. > :22:05.negotiation and it is not as if the UK doesn't have any cards. Because
:22:06. > :22:10.the UK is the fifth-largest economy in the world, and you know, the
:22:11. > :22:15.Germans are not going to to stop selling Mercedes and BMW is to the
:22:16. > :22:18.UK market. So the UK market is extremely important to the
:22:19. > :22:21.Europeans. But the German car manufacturers are not the ones
:22:22. > :22:27.making the decisions, are the politicians in Brussels and Paris,
:22:28. > :22:32.but they are investing and saying that you cannot afford to let
:22:33. > :22:35.Britain leave the European Union without paying a heavy price,
:22:36. > :22:41.because otherwise others may follow in the entire project will fall. At
:22:42. > :22:44.the end of the day the politicians are influenced by the people who
:22:45. > :22:47.vote in the business community, and the business community will make
:22:48. > :22:50.their voice vote, in my view. INEOS has grown over the years by
:22:51. > :22:54.acquiring things are negotiating, and one of the lessons, I suppose,
:22:55. > :23:00.that we have learnt is that when you go into negotiation, then, you know,
:23:01. > :23:04.the opposition is going to be in their penalty box, and we are going
:23:05. > :23:08.to be in our penalty box. And we are going to have a bit of a scrap, and
:23:09. > :23:12.that might last a little while, and we are probably going to finish up
:23:13. > :23:16.somewhere in the centre circle, having eaten each other up awhile.
:23:17. > :23:20.What we don't want to do, as the Brits, is start in the centre circle
:23:21. > :23:25.with the Europeans in the penalty box, because then you will finish up
:23:26. > :23:28.in their half. So they're just needs to be a sensible, pragmatic
:23:29. > :23:31.negotiation. We are not going to win everything, but we should win the
:23:32. > :23:36.important point is, because we have some very good cards, in my view.
:23:37. > :23:40.And we need to retain our sense of humour. It was at the end of the
:23:41. > :23:43.day, you know, the Brits are reasonably well liked in Europe, in
:23:44. > :23:46.my view, because generally they are decent people, got a sense of
:23:47. > :23:50.humour, they are pretty straightforward and honest. In the
:23:51. > :23:54.Europeans recognise that, Europeans do like the Brits and they do want
:23:55. > :23:57.Britain to be part of their community in the sense of trading,
:23:58. > :24:02.in my view, because they like treading with the UK. So we need to
:24:03. > :24:05.retain a sense of humour and at 3am in the morning when all the
:24:06. > :24:09.decisions are made, we need to have a bit of background. Don't wilt at
:24:10. > :24:12.3am in the morning. And the uncertainty that there is right now
:24:13. > :24:16.is not affecting your investment decisions? Note. No, not at all.
:24:17. > :24:19.Well, Jim Ratcliffe, we will end with that simple answer. Thank you
:24:20. > :24:26.for being on HARDtalk.