♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: thursday's vote was preceded by two months of intense debate. the leave campaign won by 52%. the decision sent shockwaves across europe and around the world. the british pound fell to a 30-year low. it momentarily dropped. prime minister david cameron said he would step down in

october. mr. cameron: the negotiation will need to begin under a new prime minister. i think it is right this new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger article 50 and stop the horrible and legal process of leaving the eu. charlie: nigel farage called the decision independence day for britain. presumptive republican nominee donald trump also praised the result. mr. trump people want to take : their country back. they want to have independence in a sense. you see that all over europe. you're going to have more than just what happened last night. they are going to take their borders back, monetary back. they want to take a lot of things back. charlie president obama : maintained that they would

maintain the relationship with the u.k. boris johnson said there was no need to rush britain's exit. martin scholz said that he wants britain out as soon as possible. joining me right now is the editor in chief of bloomberg. david miliband, a former secretary of state and now president of the international rescue committee. from london, andrew roberts, a british historian and journalist. i am pleased to have all of them on this program. i begin in london. andrew, what happened? andrew: there was a huge upsurge of opinion. people were sick and tired of having 60% of their laws made in brussels. the judges appointed by foreigners that would sign the legality of those laws and

decided to take back our independence. charlie: is that why you supported so heavily? andrew absolutely. : i never thought it would happen in my lifetime. david: i think it is a very sad day for britain. i think it is a very bad day for europe because this is not the end of the story. i think it does speak to a real indictment of the political leadership center right and center left. they have lost the confidence of a lot of the public and the fact was defined asgn a result against experts and reason. it speaks to a fundamental condition of our politics that is very dangerous. which is that there is an assault on reason. even andrew, it was a very distinguished historian said 60% of britain's laws are made in europe. andrew it was the house of : commons library that said

that. david: others have documented this. it is very important to understand that the economic fact side by side. very big issues of identity that were very prevalent. the real tragedy for britain is that the prospect of being able to be part of tackling what still exists around europe -- migration issues, economic issues. we have lost that opportunity but walked away from the negotiating table. john: i'm in the sad and bad category as well. we're going to have a long period of negotiations. merkel is going to say let's get a quick divorce. on the other side, the british is saying we want time. it is highly likely that nothing is going to begin until october. it will not file article 50 until then.

we have a long period of uncertainty. that is what markets hate. and investors. people will sit there looking at britain. i am a little more sympathetic to some of these people. liberal trend to it. a small group of people really thought this was about creating regulations,e of but there is a lot of people on the other side wants to get rid of immigrants. that was on the base level. that seems to have driven the passion. charlie: david, what do you think? david: the real worry now is the british people have sent a very clear signal. they have given them a mandate for something that cannot happen. if you look at one of the northern industrial towns that voted early. it sent shockwaves across international markets.

that town is home to a gigantic carmaking hub. voters in sunderland were saying that they want an end to foreigners having free movement into the u.k. but they certainly want to carry on having their jobs and selling cars into europe as before. they want the same prosperity and free trade as before but not the free movement of workers. i don't think they can have both. i don't think any politician including boris johnson can deliver that for them now. charlie: who is likely to be the next prime minister of britain? >> i think the newspapers will talk about boris johnson since he was the leader of the leave campaign. some people say he is not a man for detail. he is not the man that will take you through two years of painstaking negotiation and they

point to someone like teresa may or someone else in the conservative movement. this is going to be a tough period. we are going to have a short-term economic hit. people like me are you there will be long-term economic hit and were going to be trying to negotiate the new arrangements at that time and it is very striking to me that people are now beginning to talk about the norway option. they are not a member of the european union. they are a member of the european economic area but they have to accept the free movement of people. the crunch is going to come because the leave campaign did not have any degree of scrutiny of its perspectives for government. it was arguing against something and not for something. that is where the crunch will come. andrew: i agree with david on the boris thing. the tory party has a long history. boris johnson will be held as the person who took cameron down.

even if a lot of majority mb's on the leave side, andrew may have the best. charley: who will be the next prime minister? andrew: i think if he can be persuaded then michael gove. it looks like he doesn't want to do the job. he is temperamentally opposed to becoming prime minister. charlie: a lot of people have been predicting economic disaster, a global slowdown. >> christine lagarde said that credible forecast said that britain would lose 10% of its gdp. that is worse than the great depression. we have also had the prime minister talk about the dangers of war in the continent. we have also had -- i don't

think anybody has come up with the idea of swarms of locusts from egypt yet. charlie: you do not believe in the economic consequences that everyone is talking about? >> there will be the short-term hit. the pound has fallen. great if you want to go on holiday. as far as the idea of being mass economic dislocation, i don't see that happening. we export so much less to europe than europe exports to us. there is a direct and obvious financial danger for europe to try and treated us like norway. we are not norway. we are the fifth largest economy in the world and the second in the european union. it is not going to be like that. there are more jobs in europe dependent on trade with britain than there are in britain. it is a lot of scare mongering. >> we are being dragged into the arguments of the campaign.

we don't know but the initial feedback is not positive. the thing that is very strong for europeans, particularly for the french, is that they see no real merit in giving britain a good deal because they don't want the same thing to happen to other nations. it is possible that christine lagarde on that level is a n exaggeration. the idea of the pound sinking much further, that is something. it could go down to 120. these are all things people see in money. what is happening throughout new york is you can see banks and people saying we employ 1000 european nationals in the london office, how many of those are we going to keep?

they are certainly not going to put more investment. >> any country which is running a current deficit depends on the kindness of strangers. britain is running one of the largest current account deficits at the moment, 5% of national income. we're cutting ourselves off from the world's richest, single market. the sunderland is a poignant one. i represent a constituency next-door. the leadership in japan has been clear that this productiveness is there's export to european markets on the right terms. i fear the 3-5-year consequences more than the one to two-year consequences which will nonetheless more severe. i think this idea that we are going to have this slow pace of withdrawal is going to be tested and broken in the next few months.

because they want to simply move ahead? >> they may not want to move ahead but they're going to figure out what to do. the negotiating stance is clear. there is not even a negotiating team yet. they're not in position to run a successful negotiation and that has always been the danger. david sitting here in : washington, d.c. is hearing someone like andrew roberts who is asking to let the democratic voice be heard. remarkably confident that foreigners including the american people and government are going to be completely cool rational, calculators looking at that balance of trade. here is the thing. people are also angry about free trade in washington.

it is hard to get free trade deals through congress at the moment. emotioneems to think will happen in the u k. i challenge him to look at paul ryan or senator mitch mcconnell and ask about the agenda, a free-trade deal with the brits. how do you think that will go through congress? andrew: i think it is amazing. first of all, we have accused of not being rational and now we are too rational. it is got to be one or the other. the fact is, rationality does win when it comes to trade deals and they want to make more money out of us than we do out of them. that is the situation we have at the moment. why on earth would it be in their interest to screw that favor? >> you like rationality for foreigners but emotion for brits?

andrew: why do you think democracy is an emotion. it is just as rational. it is better when you're actually in charge of your own national destiny. there's nothing emotional about it. charlie: let me raise the question having to do with what might follow in terms of scotland or northern island or ireland or france? are we going to see, is this the beginning of a series of people wanting to extract from some relationship either the european union or something else? >> we know that the scottish national party has already said that this is the trigger for the beginning of a move towards a second referendum. the threat to the u.k. is a clear and present danger. the point here is that the world is more interdependent. it is 50 years since jfk wrote about interdependence.

60 years on, it is more interdependent but we have got people saying that we need to run our own affairs. that is the crunch being brought out by this. you are already seeing france already celebrating and other movements in europe. this is a challenge to the liberal international order. one of the key pillars of the liberal international order on , trade, on the environment, on security, it has been the european union. i think that the historic role that britain has played, to be a stabilizing force has been replaced now by britain being an arsonist on the system. that is very dangerous to all of those who are committed to the stability of international order. charlie: hold on, andrew.

basic shorthe answer to your question is in other countries, the dutch has been making noises. are other movements across europe. we have got the spanish elections. italy has a big constitutional issue. i think probably not but i was someone that thought probably not brexit as well. things that were impossible are now possible. what is true is the chances of the european union coming apart. andrew: the idea that we are an arsonist on the world stage because we have had brexit is completely ludicrous. we are going to stay in the g-8. we're going to stay in the united nations. the reason we have security on the european continent, nato, we are also going to stay in.

the only thing we are not going to stay in is in this old, protectionist, unpleasant thing that 17.4 million people have voted to get out of. we are not arsonists in the slightest. the other point about scotland and northern ireland and wales, they voted in the majority for brexit. a lot of scots voted remain because they do not want another referendum. they thought that would happen if remain one. when it comes to a second referendum, they are going to vote against leaving the united kingdom. the same thing will happen with these very low oil prices that they will not want to leave the united kingdom. ♪

>> part of the political backlash that david spoke about was the vote behind the education sector and then they said they had enough of experts in the country. what that is about as people feel that the people who brought us the financial crisis don't have any credibility. i think what is very striking they have been saying that there , is not going to be a recession.

we are going to be prosperous within a year. it will be a little bit bumpy. i think the british public doesn't have a clue what is going to happen next. what we are going to see is the people who voted for leave, they are going to be the ones who suffer the most. the people with the sunderland car factory are the most vulnerable. andrew was accusing the eu as being a protectionist project. it is not. it is a free market project with some protectionist forces in it. britain was the voice of reason free markets and the european process. margaret thatcher was the voice against the french that created the single market. he is ahistorical and walking away from everything britain stood for. >> by the time margaret thatcher, she was out of power

at the time in the mid-1990's. by the time she saw with the other treaties had done for the european union, she was all in favor of brexit. i do admire her hugely, how she would voted yesterday is obvious. >> she quoted this man saying referendums are the last refuge of demagogues and dictators. [laughter] whatever yosaid you are on, there is some truth whether there is a labor prime minister or conservative prime minister. >> it has been used a lot in britain since 1975. we have elected mayors on the back of it. i think david thought he was in favor of using it. >> we are all guilty. >> canada and australia use it. is australia a fascist dictatorship? of course not. fine.ndums work

charlie: did david cameron have to do this? >> that is the ultimate tragedy. himself as who saw having the ideal preparation for the job. he ended up in a situation where i fear, he bought some self some space within the u.k. party. i don't believe myself he would've been toppled as conservative prime minister if he did not commit to a referendum. i think he's going to have plenty of time to think through whether this was inevitable. my own political judgment is he was not doomed to do this. there is an important point here. for 20 years since the early 1990's, europe has been a figure on the conservative side of politics. david cameron played along until january of this year. he was unable to say whether or not he would be arguing for us staying or leaving.

i think it did jar with the electorate. only in the last three months has he turn his view that the european union is good. i think there is a wider lesson about what the electorate is willing to take. looking back on it, that might've have been the moment he was doomed. the second thing that did not fail was saying he did not want to serve a full term. if we are to take the attitude that boris johnson is something of an opportunist, that gave more room for boris to jump through. the culmination of those two things that spelled his peril. charlie: what can we say looking at this on how the respective parties handle themselves in terms of the debate. did one side make their case better and is that self evident?

>> it is never a good sign when the most popular argument is not factually true. it is the case that the leave camp refined their argument on two to three big things. one was that turkey was about to join the european union and there was nothing britain can do about it. that is not true. there was a made-up number about the cost every week that britain is paying for europe. and the idea a european army was coming which is not true. to criticize david cameron, i agree with john from the economists and disagree with the david is i don't think the fundamental act of cowardice was the whole referendum. i think the act on the part of david cameron and david was in which is the do the right thing but then be too scared to do the right thing. britain did the right thing and opening its labor markets to east european markets.

hundreds of thousands signed on. by opening our labor markets, we got the best educated graduates and english speakers who wanted to work legally. it was a net plus for the british economy. they pay more in taxes. david miliband's labor government, david cameron either did not talk about it at all or in david cameron's case presented immigration as a negative. one of the big arguments was he could not make it. he'd already taken one of his key arguments off the table by throwing red meat at the anti-immigrant camp. he could never out antigovernment it's -- anti-immigrants. >> there are two things that i would say. he is absolutely right that those of us who believe in an open britain need to make a case for managed migration. there was no way to make the case for an open trade nation that does not make the case for managed migration. secondly, i think that we made a

policy mistake in 2005 when we did the right thing in supporting european enlargement. it was a historic achievement for the world frankly. we did not have a transitional plan for the entry of polish and other workers within the eu. there were two aspects of that. one was the sheer number of people. almost half a million came. almost worse was that we have predicted that 50,000 would come. it was the sense that one thing have been told but 10 times as many came that corroded us on whether we were being straight. the numbers being produced were kosher. they were based on the migration institute who also got it wrong. i think throughout this campaign there has been a policy debate, people like us that want to be about facts and a political debate on whether anything is true. what happened in 2005 contributed to that.

charlie: how much of this was about immigration? >> a lot in terms of those two demographics. there were some people on the leave side was fed up with regulation from brussels. they wanted to take back their sovereignty and had a sense that the eu is a failing project. and that britain would be better without. there was one bit. on the doorstep or those heat maps on what issue cropped up. it was always immigration. it was the most powerful thing. charlie: take that constituency that successfully had the vote for leave. how similar is it to the constituency that is supporting donald trump? >> i'm sure many of us were thinking about trump. there is the basic element. it may not matter how well

hillary argues. if people are determined to give politicians a good kicking, people like -- charlie: it's the establishment. >> there is the same generic bit about globalization. all four of us have supported globalization creating economic growth and uncertainty and classes of losers. those are the people that form the core of these movements. charlie: do you agree, andrew? andrew i don't think you can say : that 17.4 million people that voted as a protest movement. it is much more than that. the reason people voted in the referendum i don't believe primarily was about class or age or racial things. i think it was because of the european union. it was very unpopular for a long time.

politicians did not stick up for it, even ones who later argued for it. immigration when , the premise was said there was going to be tens of thousands coming and the net migration in regards immigration, when the premise or said they were going to be tens of thousands coming and the net migration number it was 300 30,000. it is not racist to want have to have control of your own borders. they did decide that enough was enough. overall, this is a perfectly reasonable thing for her nonracist people to do. charlie rose: are there any implications that go beyond markets in terms of the cultural issues? >> the real important thing to say to an american audience is that it has gone from being a debate about race in the 1960's.

it is now about polls and others. there are two parts, there are allegations about it costing jobs are driving down wages. the microeconomics around this shows the lowest immigration is in the highest growth areas. there is a very strong feeling that it has been a huge challenge to public services. it has been more about, can i get my kid to school? your question is politics about more than the captivating machine. the answer must be yes. questions of identity are put front and center. the key to understanding of center and succulent of issues of inequality are coming

together. the brexit referendum is one example of that. charlie rose: she said to me, it's about what it means to be french. >> that is really striking thing. exit polls said a lot about immigrants taking jobs. older pensioners were one of the groups that voted most strongly to leave. i think it points to how much about the identity. having been out on the trail. the real link is that idea that if you feel the country has been stolen from you and that everything feels wrong, it is a conspiracy the of malign forces. everyone should understand, that selfishness and putting number one first, america first, britain first, that is emotion

that drove this. >> i don't think brexit was driven by selfishness. it is personally reasonable to want to govern ourselves. ask america. the idea that we were going to put up forever with the european union is not credible. >> you yourself have claimed that our membership of nato shows how much more will you will remain integrated in the global system. we can't have it both ways. we are either power of global institutions or we retreat from it. >> why were the experts wrong? >> it was the polls, it was the bookmakers and the markets. all those three together. referendum are inherently difficult to do because you have no previous sample. you can go back and compare things with the last brexit referendum.

you have to guess and they tried to guess. they obviously got it wrong. the markets have been good at predicting these things. we haven't mentioned the murder of joe coxe. -- jo cox. >> it seemed to stop the juggernaut that was building up. whether or not this terrible tragic murder of this young lady was going to affect the way they voted. and there is virtually no way that they are going to get that right.

there seem to be such thing as shy brexit tears. they just don't want to tell posters. it goes to in more of the psychology is happening politically. charlie rose: thank you very much for joining us from london. >> thank you very much. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie rose: improvisation has become one of the most popular forms of comedy in recent years. this unique style of comedy was started by a glow close. in the early 1990's, he worked with a group of comedians known as the upright citizens again. in 1996 the comedy troop moved to new york. the calls it the most biggest name in comedy today. the improv festival was created to honor the legacy of deal" in his death in 1999. here are the four founders. amy poehler, ian roberts and matt walsh. i am pleased to have each of them here. welcome. well should we say about the brigade?

>> good question. it is nice to hear our names set from your mouth. it is kind of a thrill. >> we should be described as a disreputable lunch. we are like the little rascals who have cobbled together a successful school. we have the schedule here. charlie rose: what is key about it? >> the name started and is a much bigger thing. it is a large community of comedies and writers. it is almost a philosophy in many ways. it is a community and it is made up of the community that inhabits it. >> we can build our comedy

theater that way. we have a different cast for every show. amy is saying it now represents a bunch of people. charlie rose: were you inspired by second city? >> we fell into it honestly. having a theater into school. we were doing our show. there were these people who had some interest in and privation and we started teaching classes. eventually at one point we were at a theater and we are renting so much space we were paying their rent.

at that point, we said we should have our own theater. i mentioned dale close. >> he kind of rejected second city. we just do sketch. he always said that improv can be its own art form. he had a funny contentious relationship with him but eventually he left. he developed this form called the herald. he really ticket to fruition and that was when we started taking classes from him. he developed this thing with other people. he took it to the next level which is long pole improvisation. >> it is games.

we need a new film genre so we would do what he allen type. longform is sprung from one word suggestions, you usually do 30-45 minutes. >> it moves seamlessly so the best thing you get's you have people, not to -- coming up to you asking did you plan that? >> the ultimate goal is it is written not. >> it is not just the length, we also describe it by a longform scene. charlie rose: is there a sense that improvisation is coming up? >> when we were in chicago, there is maybe a hundred 20 people in the community. now there's probably a million improvisers worldwide.

>> was in new york. but when we came here it was like bringing silt to america. they were like, what are you doing? they seem sketch but this improv was unique outside of chicago. it was wild and now we have this marathon where we are getting people from finland and japan. they have taken these lessons and interpreted from their own culture. charlie rose: explain to me this. >> it is a simple idea that when you are doing a scene, instead of shutting down some one's idea right away. you agree to it and add something to it. it is a way to make a scene continue and a philosophy in

terms of how you create together with another improviser. you work together to figure out what the scene is going to be. if i came in and said the doctor will see you now and you say i don't know what you're talking about, i came to get my tire change. what you are saying is i didn't listen to you and i decide where we are. it is hard to keep going forward. that is a big part of improv. you listen and build off. >> charlie rose: tell me about this weekend. >> deal closed passed away in 1999. he always felt underappreciated. he would tell us that and imply that. many of his peers went on to greater notoriety.

people knew who he was but he was so influential to those people and then went to the coast and did their thing. when he died, we felt a lot of the students felt he needs to be appreciated more. we don't want his memory to die out with him. we put on a marathon at that point it. we just. now we've gotten shows, at that point it was only about a hundred people. there is a lot of drinking and smoking and bald i must day. this was for the marathon.

[laughter] >> anytime day or night among many of our stages, there is somebody on their performing. you do a show and come back and sleep. it is this feeling that the theater never closes and it is uniquely new york. it is in the city that never sleeps. charlie rose: how many years have you been doing it? >> 15 years. on our 15th year, we got a documentary crew and shop all thing. we did a lot of interviews and released it this year. it is just got bought. it is a documentary called thank you, del. being here charlie is kind of

our goal. it was our goal from the beginning. being right here achieves the goal. people know how influential he was. charlie rose: this is a quote from you from 2008. you said that the hardest thing is to get the point where you can live life on stage. remember that? >>del used to have this saying. nothing is exaggerated but you tried it transfer that feeling on stage. you don't want to try to be funny. they kind of disassociate from what real life is like. it is trying to stay grounded and real so that the first unusual thing is what you catch. charlie rose: take a look at this. this is a sketch from the 1990's upright citizens brigade live show.

we will find out. >> we are a breach in the far hole. please confirm. we are going to activate russell arm into a complete diagnostic. >> roger that. it appears to be working without me. affirmative. it is burly -- automated. [indiscernible] it is telling me to get out. [laughter] don't mind that. we're not going to worry about it.

>> there is nothing to worry about. euston, i was under the impression. they are under that impression as well. [laughter] >> we were not informed here. it is on a need to know basis only. the rams arm is stronger. surely it will be quickly defeated. activate blowtorch now.

if flipping off. >> you discovered and not get. the object word. that was me, guys. >> that was your addition for snl? i can't believe the robot arm never got there. >> i was in new york right when we moved here. we moved here to showcase our sketch shows and they eventually bought it. that was a scene that never made it to the show. we were working out a new scene. >> that was a written scene. what that scene shows is a good example of heightening again.

the scene starts with an astronaut ready to take off. there in the cockpit with them. cape canaveral in houston starts fighting. that probably came out of improv and then someone wrote it up. >> we used to take all the shows and then comb ideas for sketches. then you know you could really improvise that night. >> this was before the internet. you cannot fill in staff -- posted on youtube. what a sweet about that video is that we recognized all the laughs of a people in the audience. charlie rose: from netflix to

lots of other things. television goes in terms of certain periods of drama and then it will slow down. then you will see the rise of comedy. where are we now if there is a singular life to this? >> we are at a boom of content in general. there is this ucb show where we shoot the best material from our better. now you can see it anywhere in the country. that was the goal of ours. we are going to have our own television station one day. you don't have to appeal to 30 million people anymore. >> you can see it happen on stage. you can do the exact comedy you

want to do and only appeal to a million but still be considered successful. >> i mention all of these people. this is an incredible history of comedy that he was a part of. >> he was probably the most famous person in comedy that people don't know enough about. he was one of the most hilarious people's teacher and mentor. we were in chicago at a time when chris farley had kind of left to go on to success and i arrived at second city with

steve carell and stephen colbert on the main stage there. these guys were already performing in a successful team in chicago. there is just a feeling that something was happening there. there was a hope that you could put in your time on stage and get a job. we could feel that that that feeling there. >> you can't train someone to be funny. chris farley was hilarious but he was also a force of nature that needed to be given a little direction. he really did have these techniques that you don't see just as an audience member. >> you can be funny within yourself.

the rules are great for writing to. they are used to. just knowing that scene in comedy. there are those patterns because it adheres to the rule. charlie rose: many a great comedian and when they are working on standup. i was talking to lucy k and he is trying to hone and new standup routine. it is going to take me six months. i will get one good idea and then go to a club to try it out. i was struck by the sense of where it comes from and how the idea of making a perfect as good as possible.

until you get where you are at least willing to present. you couldn't have a book if you can't teach it. there is a method and people -- it's just not true. the laughter tells you. when we did our shows repeatedly before we honed those schedules like that. you could listen to the tape and know where the last word. >> the other side of that is being able to do a show that only exists for that moment. often times good that it goes away.

mark: i am mark crumpton. you are watching "bloomberg west." the supreme court today struck down restrictions on abortion in texas by a 5-3 vote. justices rejected the state position that its 2013 law was needed to protect women's health. opponents argue the regulations were a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions. s&p global ratings is cutting the u.k.'s from aaa to aa. the agency cited a risk of less protectable policy framework. the s&p said there are constitutional issues arising from the majority of voters in scotland and northern ireland having opted to remain in the e.u.