why president obama wants us to stay because he thinks it is in america's interest that we stay because we will be a liberalizing influence. within the european union. are understandably concerned about protectionism in the united aboutre also concerned the degree of anti-americanism which there is in the european union, though less in france, for example. he wants us to be trying to reduce the significance of that. that is in america's interest. what is in our interest? francine: that would mean the u.k. is a stronger and more valuable trading partner for the u.s. whatam talking about not is in the interest of the united states. that is for them to decide.

i'm talking about the interest of the united kingdom. it is in the interest of the united kingdom to regain our freedom. mario monti, for whom i have a high regard, referred to democracy. he suggested that we weren't really democratic because ministers were appointed by the prime minister and not by the people. that is ridiculous. what democracy means is that if the people are fed up with the government, they can kick it out. and laws which have been passed can be changed by the subsequent government. you can't do that in the european union. francine: i think he was talking about house of lords. 1999, maybe lord olson was not in europe at that time, the european parliament

dismissed, i.e. sent home, the executive chair of the european .ommission so that can happen in europe as well. i'm not saying the u.k. is not democratic. i'm saying that i don't see much reason for the u.k. to take a high moral ground these of the vis the young, flourishing, new form of democracy, the only form of democracy in a constellation of states that is there in the world. many of the institutions to which the u.k. would like to continue to be long, the imf, the wto, they are all very good, they are composed just of bureaucrats, but they don't have any form of democratic briefing. said heer, mario monti

was not in favor of european political union. now he's talking about the young democracy of the european parliament. willuropean parliament acquire more and more power. britain has something like 10% seats in the european parliament, 8% of the votes in the council of ministers. this is moving in the direction of political union. we are a very small part of it. i do not believe democracy can be exercised over 28 countries. there is not a european people in that sense. there is a french people, a german people, a british people. -ut you do not have a 28 country democracy. we are getting more remote and more interventionist. >> i want to come back to the

economic aspect. i think that when you are speaking about leaving europe, you believe that things will stay as they are. you mentioned that things will go much better because we will be in the driving seat. i think nothing could be more wrong than this assessment. you are simply forgetting one single aspect, which is the anger of all the european countries which will react. you believe that it is a soft belly, that europe is really something which has very little strength, and will not react, that we just accept the consequences. this democratic institution, the european union, is going to get angry because the people of one of its members through a

democratic election decide to withdraw. that is a very poor advertisement for the european union. is it fair and democratic that one out of the 28 is allowed to ask its citizens, whereas the 27 of us -- >> the alternative to that is, britain is compelled to remain within the eu whether it citizens want to or not. the reason they are angry and nervous is because they know very well that if britain thatraws, there is a risk other countries will begin to think about it. that is for each country to decide. i think it is a shameful argument to say there would be anger. there ought to be respect for the vote of an individual country. francine: we've heard that from finance ministers.

>> i would like to make my point very clear. you are believing that all the countries will accept that things will go as if nothing has changed if there is a brexit. i think nothing would be more wrong than this. people will protect their own country, their own businesses. this will be a fight, a bitter fight, and you cannot believe that people will accept simply that you are putting at risk europe and that you will continue to benefit from everything europe has given to u.k. i think this would be wrong, simply. francine: caroline? >> getting back to this pragmatic case really does matter. without necessarily talking about anger, free-trade deals are really difficult to do. what i haven't heard, our members say they haven't heard,

is what the alternative will dealsike to the train being had with europe and those deals around the world and why you are so confident there will be a blossoming of free trade when we know it is incredibly difficult to do and it will not be in the interest of several of our trading partners to do those deals. >> i will tell you very briefly what the alternative to being in the european union is. the alternative is not being in the european union. it may surprise you, but most of the world is not in the european union. it may also surprise you that most of the world is doing a lot better than most of the european union. francine: but not necessarily better than the u.k. >> the u.k. is doing better than most of the european union. francine: but also better than most of the world. >> first of all, you actually would do quite well if we didn't get any fresh trade deals. there would be more impact on

europe than on the u.k. they would lose more jobs in europe if there was a brick wall between here and the eu . >> only 10% of their tray comes to us and 50% -- >> the fact of the matter is, we had a trade deficit with them. the magnitude of the total is something like we would lose 270,000 jobs in the u.k. and europe would lose about 450,000. >> out of 500 million people. >> the reality is there are people losing jobs. damagetral thing about to the u.k. economy on leaving, which is the main argument, isn't the trade agreements will take forever to get sorted. they don't matter that much.

fair point. his, why would it take longer than the second world war to get some reasonably functional trade agreements in place? we've never had to do it in a rush. two years is a long time. we could get most serviceable agreements in place. we wouldn't get full agreements. we wouldn't deal with -- >> would you get past morning for the city? >> some pass porting, i think. but pass porting isn't -- >> very important. one of the main reasons for being here. >> it is a benefit to existing large institutions to have regulation, to have a standing position. it is not a benefit to the rest of the economy. it dissuades competition. francine: why would you take the risk? we don't really know what any ade agreement would

look like. the certaintyknow of what will come out of this. we will have some kickback from people going rotten swines. there will be fear in the eu that there will be other referendums. they've not fixed the treaty over the european bailouts because they didn't dare risk national referendums. there's a fear among the ruling class that there would be other referendums. the balance of probabilities is the future is better out than in. you live in a country where growth is something which only the older generation remember. it hasn't succeeded for you. >> what, the european union? well the older generation remembers higher growth and there was throughout the world, but also remembers huge deficits , atich cost unemployment

the time, to future generations. future generations are now there. the effect of not having some fiscal discipline framework in a rather inventive and imaginative country in politics brought us to many bad things. because you touched the point, eu and italy, i can assure you that if it were for original italian legislative initiatives balance,ea of gender anti-environment, anti-pollution legislation, and many other things, consumer protection, italy without the eu would now be 30 years back when. but may i make another point? francine: yes. mario: in many conversations i have, because there was an

alternative, in many conversations i had when i was prime minister with david cameron, george osborne, and also in the house of lords, the best part of which has joined us this morning -- [laughter] believe made, i forcefully, the following case. the u.k. is more liberal oriented, more lover of single market, more lover of competition, then the rest of us. we desperately need a greater influence of the u.k. in the eu policy process. by the way, i was commissioner when the issue of the euro was put to the u.k. i never spent one word to try and convince the u.k. to join the euro. now i think is a completely different story. what i said to my then british started a was, if you

crusade, a proactive crusade in europe, by asking that the single markets be really taken seriously with the same instruments of enforcement that competition policy has, quick enforcement rather than taking three or four years for infringement procedure finally to be able to remove an obstacle created by member states, if you toe two or three conditions have a more open and competitive, broad single market, including for the digital professions, for services in general, you would put in great difficulty france, , theme difficulty germany

lands which are closer to a social market economy, but you would enthusiasm in northern europe, central and eastern europe, and you would be the winner of this transformation of the european union, exactly like the brits would like to see. this was not done, and the nitty-gritty of things that are not very serious but can be sold to the electorate in order to persuade that the game have changed have been given preference. francine: for our viewers and listeners, i would like to reintroduce our panelists. left, byed, from my mr. lord nigel lawson, caroline andbairn, norman lamont, maurice levy. lord lamont. trade is actually for

mutual cooperation. it is to everybody's advantage. people want trade deals. the idea that it is difficult to negotiate trade deals, i don't entirely accept. i don't accept that it is easier through the eu. if you look at small countries like chile, like singapore, like korea, they've negotiated free-trade agreements far larger than those of the eu. if you had a the gdp of the countries with which switzerland has free-trade agreements, it is larger than the combined gdp of the countries with which the eu has free-trade agreements. the free-trade agreements of many countries outside the eu include to some extent financial services, which the eu free-trade agreements have not been able to do. >> i don't think that is right.

if you talk to people negotiating trade deals, because they benefit consumers but damage producers in the short run, they take a long time. nowhere nearl is conclusion. the swiss trade deals took years. deal took seven years. the evidence is that it takes a long time. in theory, they are good over the long run. i think that is what we would see if the u.k. left the european union. >> your examples were eu trade deals. you said the deal with america, then switzerland. the fact that the eu x a long time doesn't mean it has to take a long time. carolyn: the same is true of the -- >> this is bureaucratic nonsense. helpful, but in the overall scheme of things, we do an enormous amount of trade

with the united states. we have no bilateral trade deal with the united states. we live in a world of relatively free-trade policed by the world trade organization. don't need trade deals. if anybody in this assembly goes , you are probably all too busy, but if you do, you see goods from all over the world. there are many more important things than trade deals, and the regulatory problem is a huge problem, and it is crippling for small businesses which are not really represented by the cbi had all. francine: hold on one second. >> you were shaking your head. in disbelief, when nigel said there were more important things than free-trade deals.

the point he's making is correct. there are countries outside the eu that sell more and whose growth and exports to the eu is faster than that of britain. francine: i was shaking my head -- unless you get a worse deal out of the eu. maurice levy. maurice: i think that when you are speaking about this kind of issue, you will always find reason to stay or reason to leave, and you will build your case, and you are not listening to the key issues, which are what the people in europe will feel about this. as you said, there is something much with an trade, which is being or not being a big european continent.

, thatf you are an island we are now, with eternal connected. if you want to be part of this dream or not, and if you look at what europe has been doing for , you see50 or 60 years that there's a lot of issues which have been managed properly by europe. we have avoided wars. we have been building things together. thinking solely about what u.k. can do and how u.k. can build a better deal than chile or singapore -- that is fine. >> it is not about trade. our perspective is that we wish to be a self-governing democracy with a global outlook. we are hugely connected.

-- london is the most international city in the world. that has nothing to do with the european union. may i finish? >> you would probably not be the largest as you are in financial services in london. i would argue that without all the trade that you are doing with europe, you would not be where you are today. nigel: that is nonsense. let me finish, mr. levy. also on the noneconomic side probably the most important member of nato after the united states. a long way off the united states, but the second most important. permanent member of the security council of the united nations. the commonwealth contains a lot

of the most exciting, emerging, not least india. we have connections, international connections, greater than any other european country. to talk about us as some island, geographically we are an island, but somehow isolated unless we are part of europe, that is nonsense. the question is a political one. i wish the european union well. you say it is a dream. he is a dream. but unfortunately it has turned out rather closer to a nightmare. france --r friends in i live in france. i love france. we wish our friends in france and italy well. but we think they are on the wrong track. we wish to choose our own destiny. that is what it is all about. francine: mario monti.

mario: i've not heard a word on research. we know that research is a key driver of economic growth. there is at least one aspect where the eu is doing quite well, so well that much of its funds do go to british universities and research centers. , what would our british friends make of a u.k. out of the eu? finally,dly and everything i said, i want to stress this, this morning, is not whether brexit would be in the interest of the eu or not. i tried, because i have been

invited here in london, to put myself in the shoes of british consumers, companies, and even of the u.k. can i venture to say that there would certainly be some advantages for the eu if the u.k. were to leave us, but there might also be one big and , which is not the one you are considering, namely no longer to have to deal with this rather difficult partner. but i, for one, would make the proposal that they, after the u.k. leaves the eu, that the eu should finally shift to one official language only, english, because so far, it has been unfair to select it as the only , the languageage

of a large member state. and of course ireland would so, but ient by doing believe that the dialogue with our u.k. friends would be even stronger, which would not make fact that all the the renegotiations have to be made. francine: lord lamont. norman: both mario and our french friend have given the impression that -- >> the frenchman is maurice. norman: lovely name. the impression that we are going to drift off into the atlantic and all cooperation is going to stop with europe, i don't think that need heaven at all. the military cooperation britain

has with france, which is extremely valuable, that absolutely would continue. and i think europe would want some military cooperation with britain. take mario's point about research. there are non-eu countries that collaborate in the research and development programs of the eu, to which we contribute through the budget. switzerland makes a small payment towards the research budget and collaborates on research. we could participate in the erasmus program. i don't think collaboration between universities should cease just because we leave the eu. why therch, the reason british universities are in the forefront is because we happen to have more of the generally agreed best universities in the

in then britain than rest of europe has. and that is why our universities attract research grants and research students. they've got nothing whatever to do with the european union. what i do agree with is that one cannot be certain about the consequences of brexit. but one cannot either be certain of the consequences of remaining within the european union. the european union is changing all the time. union isto political getting more pronounced. we know that your friend, president juncker, published ?ast year -- how did this go the creation of a single european finance ministry with a

single european finance minister by 2025. is that of the matter you cannot have a monetary union without a fiscal union and you cannot have a fiscal union without a political union. if you don't want to go to a political union and you were a bit evasive about that, mario, if you don't want a political union, then abandon the monetary union. francine: we are just running out of time. one more comment from carolyn fairbairn, and everyone can submit questions through the app that we talked about the four. also, this is the right time to vote in the poll. i will be taking questions from the floor. carolyn: i just want to raise a point that hasn't been raised yet, the importance of inward investment into the u.k.

the u.k. is doing well in the european union at the moment. g7is probably in the top two countries. one of the reasons is we attract foreign investment to this country. 70% of them give membership of the european union has one of the main reasons they are here. that that would not be affected by leaving the european union is not something that is supported by multinational investors. in terms of jobs, growth, our future prosperity. francine: i need to go to q&a. a lot of it will refer back. for our radio listeners and tv viewers, we are talking about the implications for trade, if thes, and regulation u.k. were to leave the eu. we have a fantastic panel. fairbairn, lord norman

lamont, maurice levy. if we go to some of the questions that people have submitted, one first one to lord lawson and lord lamont from luke , aberdeen asset management. lord lamont, what would make you change your view and cause you to stay in the eu? requirei think it would much more on the democracy front, much more return to national parliaments. one of the objectives that david cameron set out was that he back toower to go national parliaments and that has not happened in any significant way as a result of the negotiation. i do not accept the legitimization -- i do not believe there is such a thing as a european popular will across 28 countries. i would want to see much more

power given back to national parliaments. francine: lord lawson. mario: i agree -- i agree with norman. first of all, in his bloomberg said theavid cameron european union is profoundly unsatisfactory. it needs far-reaching and fundamental reform. those were his words. he then went into a renegotiation and got no far-reaching more fundamental reform, no reforms at all. the result is, it is clear that the european union, in our terms, the terms which he set out, is un-reform of all. the other thing that has to

change is the drive to political union. the way this could be seen is if the european union were to abandon the single currency, which would be a great economic benefit to pretty well every member country of the european union with the exception of germany, but if it were to abandon the single currency, which is logical if you don't want to have a political union, the currency is a hallmark of -- there are two things which are the hallmark of an independent sovereign country. if they abandon the currency, i would have to reconsider my position. it is clear they are not going to. francine: if you want to submit

questions, now is the time. if you are in the room, raise your hand. mr. monti, this is for you. what is the risk of the eu turning into a less market friendly area? mario: there is a risk in that direction. exactly the reason why i was firmly convinced that the way out should have been for the u.k. to take the lead within the european union, to make it more market-friendly. may, we hear that one of the reasons to leave the eu is to avoid the rather remote, in my view, risk of belonging to a political union. this so concrete as a risk

even theight justify political disunion of the formerly united kingdom that might derive from the separation of scotland? there's no connection between the two. the scottish national party has its own agenda. there is no logical connection whatever. no reason to believe the scottish people will move in that direction. if we were to leave the european union, which i would hope, then the scottish people would be -- scotland would be in a very poor way. if they don't remain within the .nited kingdom they depend on the english market overwhelmingly. they would not want any disconnection. there is no connection.

that is just propaganda. norman: you what -- mario: you admit that scotland should have a democratic possibility. nigel: they are voting. mario: but they should decide also whether or not they like to continue. nigel: they did. 2014. francine: narrowly. so it is democratic to offer opportunities to reconsider. >> what we can't have referendum in every town in the u.k. francine: a lot of questions are coming in about scotland and the rest of the u.k. we have one in the middle. can you tell us who you are? >> richard, investec asset management. i will start with a contentious question for the panel. extent brexit, to what do you think this spells

potentially the end of the european project. francine: who is that question too? the european project? >> i would like to you from our continental members of the european union. francine: is it the end of the european project? would you like to start? mario: i don't believe so. also because i believe that the u.k., which is a very pragmatic people, might in due course even reconsider whether it likes so much the splendid isolation out there. nigel: isolation? mario: insulation, maybe. [laughter] mario: out there in the cold. but certainly, the european project has many tensions concerning it. u.k., whichfrom the

should not delude itself of being the only problem of the european union. union is the european going through many tensions because in all of our countries, democracy is going through many shock,s, increasing inability to think longer. political leaders turned almost without exception into political followers of opinion polls, selling a referendum like this, preannounced three years ago as something that would be in the national interest, where as it was, as has been said, a device to enhance the strength of a polar snow -- of a personal political ambition. 27 eu, which has 28, maybe such democracies, has its own severe problems. one common feature of this

degeneration of our democracies, of which the u.k. is quite a significant example, is that international integration suffers more and more. that is why i would warn the u.k. not to be optimistic about this new bonanza of international trade agreements facing it. francine: lord lamont. norman: i believe that if there was a vote, that might be the one way in which you could save the eu. i think it would cause them to think again, cause them to think about reform. it might usher in some change in the eu, make it less intrusive. that is what is fundamentally wrong with the eu. it is all about integration for the sake of integration. if public opinion gave them a bit of a shock, i think they might think about the shape of the whole project. francine: maurice levy. maurice: i may agree with you.

but this is not a reason to wish the u.k. is leaving. i don't wish to see the brexit happen. i believe that what is happening currently is something which is already a wake-up call for europe. they believe that you staying helpeurope, you can dramatically changing the way things are happening in europe. i don't like a lot of things in france. and they don't like a lot of things in europe. they believe there is a lot of reform that has to happen. these reforms are taking too much time, and sometimes i agree, there is too much bureaucracy in europe and we are stalled simply because it is difficult to get 28 countries together and agreeing.

at the same time, there is something which is much bigger than all these issues. building a far better europe is something in which you can contribute greatly. n?ancine: caroly did you want to -- >> if we do get a vote out, i don't think you can discount the original theory that we would find very rapidly that a different deal with europe was on the table, which could be advantageous to both the u.k. in europe. catalyst fore as a getting europe into better shape. as a potential that you would a vote for out, a much more sensible deal with europe, and we change our minds and stay in. rather a nice prospect. can't guarantee it. for two: we halftime

more questions. the gentleman on the right. >> good morning. my name is simon, from commerzbank. with all due respect to the seniority of the panel, why do you not have somebody under the age of 30 and the panel? future ofl about the europe and many students have benefited greatly. second quick question, i'm shocked by the fact that you've only focused on the monetary and trade aspects of brexit. this is talking about the eu. he have not focused on the eu as a piece project, why it was founded in 1955. we need to look at the future of the european union. without the united kingdom, the european union is quite lost. francine: do you have a question? i talked about the panel -- >> wide to you not have somebody under the age of 30 in your panel, and why --

let's take another question. we will address it afterwards. >> good morning. i wanted to ask mario monti what could be the impact on the exchange rate of a possibility of brexit. what could happen to the british pound against euro and the euro against sterling? what could be the impact on british gdp? >> thank you for the question. we have just been warned that we have discussed too much these slightly irrelevant topics. thank you. mario: i believe there would be which unpredictability,

is loved by those making work in the foreign exchange markets. london, however, i fear will be shrinking gradually because of these uncertainties and because eventually of the exit from the european union. euro is there to stay. so many bad things happened onein the eurozone, but not can legitimately speak of the euro crisis. we have lived through very crisislt financial within many members of the eurozone, but the euro has been unimaginably strong since the very beginning, sometimes too strong. european producers would say. francine: lord lamont. norman: i wanted to comment on

the point about peace. i think this is a complete myth, the eu creating peace in western europe. it is nato that has kept peace in europe. we live in a completely different world in which people travel, in which there is trade. there would be trade without the eu. there is tourism, mobile media. hadone opportunity the eu to bring peace was in the balkans and yugoslavia, where they you made a complete mess of it. the eu external foreign affairs spokesman said in the beginning of the balkans crisis, this is , not america's. america had to come in and clear up the mess left by europe. francine: hold on. carolyn: i just want to pick up

on this point about economic shock and ink it to the point about young people. this point about shock, there's almost consensus on that. even gerald lyons confirmed that. linking it to this point about young people, i couldn't agree more. i have three of them. i know what they think and i know what they care about. they are instinctively confident about a future within the european union. this is a generation who only six years ago went through the financial crash, faced unemployment coming out of universities and schools, and are we going to do it again? are we going to inflict another short-term recession for something totally unproven? i think these are very important and very connected points. francine: we are unfortunately running out of time. i'm going to ask you what people should be thinking about in the booth. lord lawson. nigel: what is the european

union about? the european union is about a political venture which we don't want to be part of. tobrings no economic benefit the european union itself. the european union is one of the slowest growing countries in the world, with one of the highest levels of unemployment, which is very sad. whicha political project the british people do not wish. the french don't either. elitistce is an country. it is the elites who run it. i was interested in the polling three weeks ago where the french people were asked, would you like to have a referendum so you could leave the european union, and 53% said yes. francine: they would be huge queues. i would think as a

british citizen, do i really ine much greater confidence the political class in the u.k. then i have generally, and what i feel comfortable in having this political class leading me and my fellow u.k. citizens in the rather untested and perilous adventure of going against the wind at a time when countries try to combine rather than to pursue nostalgia through integration. francine: john bolton. , if i was a on person, and i wish i was, the one thing i would pick up on is the level of youth unemployment. francine: carolyn fairbairn. carolyn: i think it is about

what is best for the next generation, what will create the best prosperity within the u.k., globally, and that should be in the minds of all of us. francine: lord lamont. norman: it is about what is best for the young people and where are the opportunities. it is about where are they globally. economy. a slow growth we'd better have the freedom to find new markets in the world and take back control of our own affairs. francine: maurice levy. maurice: i think the british people are benefiting inside and outside of europe. they are inside because they are part of the eu and they are outside because there are a lot of things they have elected come election given, and the eurozone. they are benefiting and i would advise them to think about what it is.

francine: thank you so much for a great discussion. thank you for our panelists and also our great audience. [applause]

mark: welcome back to "the pulse ." i'm mark barton.

let's get straight to bloomberg's first word news. china's central bank has responded to a tumble in the dollar by strengthening its currency fixing the most since 2005. it comes after a gauge of the greenback strength sank after an unexpected decision to keep policy unchanged. deeper than expected loss in the first quarter because of government support during the financial crisis. the net loss more than doubled. rbs cast doubts over its plan to resume a dividend. supervisoryank board member is stepping down two years early after criticism far improvingo do potential wrongdoing at the

company. he was left isolated after he sought to examine potential links between board members and legal cases. that is according to people familiar with the matter. economy grew faster than forecast in the first quarter. higher investment and a rebound drove the expansion. growth accelerated to 0.5% from 0.3%, the fastest pace in a year. global news 24 hours a day. mark: we are down for the week, but up for the month. stoxx 600, is the down more than 1%, heading for his first weekly drop in three. we are ending the month on a down day. it is heading for a monthly gain. it is read across the board.

the worst performers look to be i.t., health care, and financials. if you look at the individual stocks and how they've been moving, starting with health care and looking at sanofi, little change in first-quarter profit, but a decline in sales. 11% inn insulin declined the quarter. we are seeing that stock move lower today. rbs, falling after it reported a deeper first-quarter loss. it repaid the u.k. government for support received during the financial crisis. it also said it would take longer to resume dividends. profit surge, but it did warn about the second quarter moderating short-term capacity growth plans because of the effect of the brussels terrorist attacks. that has been dragging travel stocks lower as well. finally, back to the terminal.

11-months fallen to low. dollar-yen, the yen has been strengthening because of the boj 's in action, but the weaker dollar certainly hasn't helped. tyler-yen hit 106. mark: thanks very much indeed. you've been with bloomberg for the last hour i hope. you've heard the debate. the brexit panel. let's break down some of the key points. svenja o'donnell is here. won? far, thed say so remain camp could be declared the winner's. i think this is something that has been reflected in the polls. s as we call them have been slightly on the back foot. we've had a series of warnings from president obama down to the

treasury publishing a very hard-hitting report showing how much worse off brits would be if we left. mark: one of the audience noted something which did stand out, that none of the panelists were under 30 and the debate was very much a trade-monetary debate. is that to the negative of the whole argument? >> i think the problem we are seeing is that while the political class are very engaged , journalists and commentators are very engaged, the general public don't really care. a lot of people remain undecided. i think it is not going to really start to grip people until we get closer to that june 23 deadline. mark: good to see you. thanks for joining us. the full we go, want to catch up with manus cranny. he spent the week in the middle east. he joins us from dubai. what have you been up to? manus: i've been up to abu

dhabi. i've been wondering about the price of oil. we've been busy rehearsing. bloombergut to launch markets middle east. i'm down here in the region. on sunday, eight :00 a.m., and we've got it all covered. -- excellency [indiscernible] if you want to know about what is going on in the world, tune in 8:00 sunday morning local time. far too early for me. stay with "surveillance." we're up next. they've got great interviews lined up. the conversation starts with george. later in the show, publicis chief executive maurice levy. you just saw him on our big brexit debate. and bloomberg will bring you those exxon mobil earnings

before markets open in the united states. or havere opening opened lower today, but are down for the week, up for the month. a beautiful, bright day on this friday morning. ♪

francine: leaves or remain, that is the question. we will recap the arguments on both sides. yen on the rise, japan's currency surges against the dollar. and rbs' loss. the bank says it will take longer to resume dividends. this is bloomberg "surveillance ." vonnie quinn is in new york. currencies, a at lot of the market action, but also getting april consumer prices for the euro era