the use and manipulate that process to their effect and, by the way, so do commissioners who don't like stuff. they do something. i tried to get my colleagues to vote a rule of procedure, and they wouldn't because some have an advantage by not following those rules. if i were congress, i'd be tempted to say, look, i'm not going to be prescriptive about everything you're doing, but it's good government that you should have a rule of procedure, and it should cover the following topics, and the community ought to know what rules they're playing by. even the public interest groups have to argue whether the ex parte rules are being followed. it could be clarify inside a clean way. and last thing, i know we're almost down done, but the fcc is a new deal era agency. i'm not one of those people who think we don't need it, i think we do need it. but i do think at some point five commissioners organized in this way, apa, administrative

procedure act, in the internet age that may become increasingly too cumbersome, and how do you rebuild the structure in a constructive way is a good question. >> host: michael powell is president and ceo of the national cable and telecommunications association. kim hart, senior technology reporter with politico have been our guests on "the communicators." >> coming up on c-span2, newark, north carolina, mayor cory booker talks about his support for president obama. then a look at the impact of redistricting on congressional and state elections. after that, we're live as british prime minister david cameron speaks to the house of commons on the recent european union summit in brussels on the debt crisis. and later, more live coverage as republican senator dick lugar and his former colleague, democrat sam nunn, assess their legislation passed 20 years ago that aimed to secure and

dismantle weapons of mass destruction. >> also today the co-founders of the ben and jerry's ice cream chain speak at the national press club about their support for the occupy wall street movement. ben cohen and jerry greenfield will explain how business leaders can reduce economic inequality and bring about the changes being advocated by the movement's demonstrators. this event can be seen live later this morning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span.t a >> next, newark, new jersey,li mayor coryke booker.. he recently spoke on behalf ofth presidente obama and his re-election campaign in manchester, new hampshire.f the event was co-hosted by the st. answer helm college creme cats and -- democratses and the group organizing for america. it runs about 50 minutes. [applause]

>> i'm sorry, i just had to retreat christian there. how's everybody doing?i are we enthusiastic? are we excited? not for me though. [laughter]e look, i am thrilled to be here. i'm looking at my time, i wanthe to manage it appropriately. i really have two agendas, one, to talk about obama and a lot of the issues, and i'm hoping in the question and answer we can o get into that as much as you want to. but really what i'm hoping to de is to excite the folks that arer here to get involved in thisg campaign. i was just interviewed by avi campus reporter who's actually on the mitt romney campaign, and i actually encourage that. at the end of the day, you have understand democracy cannot be a spectator sport. be a spect. we can't sit on the sidelines. i always say we as americans are getting caught up in a educational where we are getting so upset about what is going on in the world we are not getting off of our technical anatomy is

tookises and getting it in the game doing something about it. the problem today in america we are going to have to reprint for is not the tree all the words and violent actions of the bad people, the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. when i came out of school before i graduated was a great introduction i appreciate that but i'm hoping next time i get introduced in new hampshire will be from a jury out of shape individual who was not an athlete like i used to be. please close your eyes and imagine me because i used to be chiseled. now i just jiggle. [laughter] i hear the cameras are back there. tmz. arthu tmz? no, not at all? [laughter] if i started dating kim car - iain, tmz would be here. [laughter] when i came out of law school before i came out of school i really wanted to start getting involved in what my parents

talked about as being a conspiracy of love. ultimately the united states of america our history can be summed up as a conspiracy of love, ordinary americans willing to do extraordinary things. more than was asked of them were required of them to come deutsch, continued acts of decency and love to make a difference and i am a product of that. into the town i moved into because of black and white americans who came together in an organization called the fair housing council that allowed my family to be the first black family to move into an all white town, as my dad called us in a tub of vanilla ice cream. allowed my parents coming out of college to find their first job to order the chicago urban league and many were not hiring african-americans. was a conspiracy of love in the small town of south carolina where my dad's mother, a single mom, couldn't to take care of them and the community came together. the conspiracy of love to in power might add not only to be raised but when it came time to go to college, recently over

thanksgiving he broke into tears talking about these people whose names he can't even remember who put dollar bills and envelopes to enable him to afford college, and to me this is the beautiful thing about america. i know i stand here now drinking from the bells of freedom and liberty and opportunity that i did not bid. lavishly like wheeled in from the banquet tables prepared to us by our ancestors and what frustrates me now is that so many of us are sinking into the sciences and, surrendering to it as opposed to realizing we have a choice model how tough times are we can just consume the blessings we were given or we can metabolize them and put them to work so i landed in the ward new jersey from my state going to the biggest city to try to make a difference. i was still a law student. the first person i met was this amazing woman named virginia jones. we named a street after her this year and she passed away in january but she was a president from a high rise low-income housing that eventually towers.

i'm cory booker from yale law school and i'm here to help you. she looked at me you want to help me? she almost looked amused by it and she said okay and closed her door. you need to follow me. she walked me down five flights of stairs, through the courtyard into the middle of martin luther king boulevard, cars going back and forth and said if you want to help me tell me when you see around you? why c? yeah, described the neighborhood. okay, i see graffiti and i just described the more i talked more she shook her head and she said you can't help me she turned around and walked away. i chased after her and stopped her from behind and i said what are you talking about? she looked at the heart and she said the way you need to understand something and

problems, that is all there is ever going to be but if you are one of those people that opens your eyes and sees hope and possibility, sees promise, potential, love >> our hope for what could happen in our country, and at that point i said, look, whatever this guy does, i want to follow it. i want to be a part of not his vision, but i want to be a part of the vision and understanding he has about what our nation is,

what the real story of america is. that america is a place of inclusion. that we're a country that believes that everybody has something to contribute. we believe that when people join the military, they shouldn't have to lie about who they are. they can tell the truth. how god made them. i want to serve my country. we're a nation that believes, and i found this out just from sitting at my dinner table that people who do good, hard work, the same job as others, should get paid the same amount of money. and barack obama, by passing legislation and making changes to insure that women who are getting, doing the same work can get paid the same amount of wor money. it was things that we've talkedt about, about understanding that fundamentally in order for this economy to lead into the future, we cannot have a first rateu economy if we have a second rat education system. we have a sece education system. if college education for example gets more and more out of their reach of other americans and that is what happened and we all

understand this america went from being the number one country in the globe and percentage of the population there were college graduates now we are down to eight or nine and so to see obama now as president obama charge liberal on many of these things, greater e. delusion, greater affordability helping young people achieve their dreams for their lives that i had for mine, the dream of contributing, the dream of country living, giving back, being part of the conspiracy. and so i stand here on a college campus so proud in my city i see what's happened president obama doubled the funding for things like pell grants to enable more of my citizens and newark to afford to go to college. president obama has helped figure out ways to actually get more funding for kids when it comes to the student loan program. in fact he took little people collecting money and he reinvested into our student loan

programs. when i came into yale law school and didn't feel golden handcuffs because they said if you go into public service we will forgive your loans overeaten year period. after ten years of making your payments if you still have money you go to yale forgive it. i thought was the greatest thing in the world. one of the reasons i chose to go to yale law school. i turned around, and president obama that went to a former interior wall school hertford [laughter] has now created a national program that is the exact same thing. so i stand here pretty proud. i've seen how credit card companies use to set up these things in my campus at stanford, and signed kids up offering them all kinds of things and have the time we were like a free t-shirt, for is be? i can get a frisbee. sign up for credit cards the would be all these hidden things and before you know it you'd be leaving college in your university and in debt to credit

cards president obama said that shouldn't be the way and he's reformed those programs. i've seen a tough economy this is what makes -- i did use to have this big afro pull out all of my hair and in a tough economy i have seen ideas that are not republican or democrat in fact they come from many republicans. my first fund-raiser was this incredible guy named jack kemp republican back in those days in the 90's who drew a fund-raiser for a democrat running for the mayor in a place like newark because we shared the same ideas. they were not republican ideas. jack kemp believe if you give the right tax incentives and urban areas, like empowerment zones which were a jack kemp idea to create that opportunity. malae have a president for dhaka, saying the same kind of thing let's give businesses tax incentives to reinvest in our economy. i love the fact is we of

programs to help small businesses i can tell small businesses over the last three plus years in the administration they've cut taxes 17 times he is now proposing things like giving businesses tax incentives to hire people giving businesses tax incentives to hire people coming home from iraq and afghanistan. ideas to increase buy here this ridiculousness coming out of congress people are interested in taking partisan fights the in doing what i know can help my community today. but yet we've still succeeded. we've succeeded in getting in my city as well as all across america payroll tax cuts and now i can't believe congress is fighting over it because i had a residence in line getting a thousand dollars more on average in their paychecks and people to struggle to provide for their family to make ends meet what do they do?

they don't sit on it and hold it to the invest in to our economy. president for dhaka, understood we can stimulate jobs says he's taking tremendous criticism but in my city thanks to the stimulus fact, he built roads and affordable housing and provided jobs and thousands of people in my city got opportunities in the toughest economy of our lifetime because of the actions of our president. and so i stand here pretty psyched right now. in my generation, every generation will face great crises and it is unavoidable. my parents' generation faced the big battle of creating a more equal nation of civil-rights for all. my grandparents' generation face the great depression and world war. america is not defined by our challenges. every generation is defined by how we beat post-religious. what will we stand up for?

and what will we do? so this election again is about i'm not a partisan politician. a large percentage of my supporters and new work new jersey come from republicans who didn't stop at jack kemp because to me i'm not about ideology and about pragmatism will get the job done what will educate more people, what will give businesses moving, what will get banks to invest? what will provide more security for families? i'm a pragmatist and i am proud of my country right now. i'm proud that in the deep depths of the crisis despite the cameras on to focus on all those rendered in washington there are leaders standing up and getting things done. i'm the first person to tell you health care legislation was not perfect. it wasn't perfect and we have a severe problem. america cannot spend close to over 17% of its gdp on health

care costs when our closest competitor nations are spending about 12. we are not going to put one thing right now what he did to me was heroic. you know there are millions of children in america that couldn't get health care? because they had something called pre-existing conditions. do i want to live in a nation where you have a child born with a disease or disability that can't get coverage? that's not the america that i believe in. i talk to college students all the time and i see kids graduating from college and they are worried because they are being kicked off their health care coverage. to me that is not the america that i want to be the incoming and i see that now we have laws in place kids can stay on their parents coverage until they are 26. so this is a complicated time. there are no easy ways to success. in fact a precondition to

triumph is great frustration. it is. i know this from calculus and college. [laughter] the precondition to success is great frustration. but i do believe this nation has a destiny, and i do believe also with the great american leader frederick douglass said you don't get everything you paid for but you have to pay for everything that you get. our nation is not just going to ease out of the crisis. a politician that tells you that they don't want anything from you but you don't have to sacrifice anything or give anything, do anything, they are selling you something you shouldn't buy. america did not get to where it is on it an easy road. we have to make tough choices. we had to make sacrifice, and that is the only thing possible to get some of the challenge we have now but i have faith. king said change will not relent on the wings of inevitability of

must be carried on the backs of people willing to struggle. and frankly when i do stop and college campuses because i see that tradition continues the traditions of my parents to end up in college in the early sixties involved with lots of people who went to the movements and freedom rides and marches the tradition continues from me in my generation when i saw my friends from jail or stanford or the colleges i went to giving up the luxury is wonderful jobs being offered i'm going to go and served. i'm going to do teach for america in fact my generation like when the cops found the organization. i'm going to go to the united states military come serve my country. as it empowers me to continue in my life. and now it's your generation of college students, and the wonderful thing about this generation is you are in my opinion the millennials generation. you'll be the defining generation the country pays. and so, as i conclude and begin

to open for questions i just want to end with where i started with the young lady who witold you. in 2002i ran for mayor and lost that election and there is a documentary dhaka called street fight and if you see somebody pumping your fist in the back -- it's like now one of the current tv documentary is to watch before you die. it won the film festival, the canadian film festival, and it was nominated for the academy award but it lost to a film called march of the dam penguin's. [laughter] that was the official title. i'm not making it up. that was the official title. they dropped the damn to be marked acceptable. i thought if morgan freeman was married in me shading in the morning and would win an academy award. [laughter] i make exceptions for pain

gwen's. i hate those little flightless rodents. i'm not bitter or anything. it was a painfully election. i hope you go to netflix if you have a chance. esquire magazine comes to me and says we one you to be in our issue of the 40 best and brightest in america and like a what are you talking about? i don't feel like the best test or the brightest on anything i just lost and the election. let me write an election about real american heroes that we don't often see in the tv cameras or newspaper articles. let me write an article for esquire about one of the best and brightest and they said okay, editor and mark warren said absolutely. i went to interview ms. virginia jones, one of my heroes in the nation. people stand in the trenches and front lines of the american dream and do whatever they can to make this country be real, makes a promise real, standing there interviewing her and she tells me this story that shocked

me. i've known her a long time at that point. served in the american military and was amazing and she it's a knock on her door and it's not an arrogant guy like me saying he wanted to help it was just a woman crying, couldn't speak to her. a greater by the arms and said follow me and it dragged her down five flights of stairs to the lobby and ms. jones comes to the lobby and sees her son lying on the ground with bullet holes and she's telling me the story. i wheeled into the lobby, fell upon his chest and immediately he was dead. you hear a story like that and it is the most unnatural thing for a parent to have to bury a child and i remember putting down my reporter's hand looking at her and the first thing that came to mind was a stupid thing to say.

no one tells you how to deal with situations like that said the first thing that came to mind -- i know where she works, she makes decent money but she chooses to live in what then became public housing. she and i actually paid market rent to live in these buildings. i said ms. jones, i know where you work. i know the money you must make. i said why do you still live in these buildings and have to walk through the lobby every day your son was murdered and she almost looked at me insulted by the question and she folded her arms and looks at me and says why do i still live in brick towers? i said yeah. and she goes why do i still live in apartment 58? i said yeah, why? she looked at me harder and said why am i still the tenant president in these buildings and have been since the day they were built in 1969? i'm thinking that's electoral longevity i need to find out what's going on there. laughter career and i said yeah, why? and she stood up st. -- she's a

woman that is 5 feet but at that moment i was looking up to her and she said to me because i am in charge of homeland security. and i hugged her. each and everyone of us must understand that we are stronger than we know, more powerful than we believe, more why is the and we will ever understand but especially us that are coming out of school. you really can make a difference. you really can make change. you can transform this world but it starts with taking action and taking responsibility. this election will determine the destiny of the globe. there will be decisions made in the next four years there will have global impacts. i for one have faith in the president of the united states of america. i believe he will be a good steward of the nation, and most of all i believe he believes in

us and our leadership ability the matter your political beliefs i hope this is a campaign that here's more from the american people than ever before because it is that important and i hope that you here today will choose not just to vote but to leave the vehicle we as we go into next november. thank you. [applause] >> q&a. will you run around with a microphone? yes, sir. you have a shaved head. it's a good look. i trust a shaved head man. [laughter] mr. obama said you have any advice to give me? i said shave the head. didn't do it. i think he would have gotten ten more planes. mitt romney needs to shave his head. that man's here is to perfect it defies gravity. [laughter] all right, in the back.

>> were you able to have school choice? >> i will repeat the question because -- anyplace in new jersey but especially in newark. >> the question just in case tmz didn't get it did we have school choice in the work new jersey, do we have abundant options and the answer is no we haven't gotten there yet because there were a lot of forces the resisted in the past but i have a weird alignment. really i think the most and talked about greatest achievement of the administration are because of a guy named arne duncan that the secretary of education and president teamed up to do transformative things and one of them was to create greater accountability in schools because union accountability that greater access to laws that

may in power school choice everything from charter schools to alternative school models and i've talked to the secretary of education a lot. it takes awhile to scale up. yesterday i was at the ribbon cutting for another new school model in the ward new jersey. we've opened up a lot of different types of schools ranging from charter schools to schools you could graduate having to years of college credit by the time you graduate from schools. schools for disaffected youth who wouldn't otherwise drop out, schools for kids coming out of incarceration. we are trying to create what you said the empowerment so they can get up and look at the world and say i've got five, six, seven schools to choose from all i can figure out what's best for my kid if i can flip a switch and get their overnight but in newark new jersey watch us. we've brought together a combination of local law activists, national philanthropist's some of you might have heard about market

zuckerberg. i quit on him and he said you are my millionths fall were you get he said if you invest in philanthropy it can leverage change so this year we opened up five new schools this year in newark we've expanded a large percentage of the schools to longer school days. we just started a literacy program we watched the kids are not only getting books but they are getting books to yonah, ten books just little kids when the owner books they take pride in reading. we are doing a lot of initiatives to get where you want to go and i encourage your buddy interested to go to the foundation for york's future you can see what we are doing with the philanthropy to get on the competitive guy like we all should be and i want to work to be a national model for reform and amazing in the time of partisanship i've got a republican governor you have

probably never heard of him he is very soft-spoken but a republican governor in new jersey who is 100% on board with what we are trying to do. >> president obama could have made the single largest example of freedom of trees and education by declaring washington, d.c. as a starting point for universal rights such as trice but he did not do that. in fact there was quite a public effort to continue a certain program and he more less denied the continuation of that program and the question goes back who and why is blocking choice in education not only in newark and d.c. and new hampshire here in

fact. i submitted the legislation and 92 for choice and education, but i will tell you it was hijacked at the state legislative office services for rewriting legislation and it a rout in such a way that when it came out of the legislative services i could not even recognize the freedom of choice in education. >> let me say two things, that is a substantive question you obviously know a lot about education in the nation it's very obvious to me so for those of you who don't know washington, d.c. had a program that was a three sector strategy the bus started under meir williams which said we are going to try to expand the charter school base and get more federal funding for public education and stirred a scholarship program for kids in the disadvantaged to go to any school you want to and be as a democrat and other

democrats put this was great. senators like dianne feinstein came out and endorsed the program. washington, d.c. is however the only place where the federal government has the control and the sense over the funding of the schools so you're right. right now i've talked to the senators and people in the administration about this that took about one of those prongs' which is a scholarship back and you really can agree on that but i will tell you this when it comes to federal policy to the rest of the united states people say you have a lot in common with barack obama. a lot in common? he went to a privileged wall school in a nice neighborhood. i went to yale. he started out as a first job as a community organizer. i was a neighborhood coordinator. he was born in the united states of america. i was born in washington, d.c.. d.c. is different. federal policy -- i tell you this again i deal with a lot of people all over the political

spectrum when it comes to federal policy of barack obama has done to in power choice is more than any other president and i will give you this example the race to the top fund basically says states have to do better in change in their laws to change after the fund that made it easier of listed caps on charter schools, one of things the guilaume administration was able to do and they would move their caps so when it comes to federal policy it really is a state-by-state battle but this federal government gave a lot of incentives where there was this barrier to the education reform but provide a lot of state houses to clean up their act and allow for more school choice so i agree with you the program for the 40,000 plus kids in washington, d.c. for a fraction of them really but i disagree when it comes to the obama

administration doing better than in getting criticized for arne duncan to get booed by the teachers' union when he went to speak their shows you this is why i love obama is a centrist jogging attack on both sides of the trial because what he was doing to liberalize educational chollet said for the urban communities especially that serve a lot of minorities and to me this is the greatest. i want to think the greatest national security threat is in america? the greatest national security threat. i asked this once of a republican after he talked up the war in iraq and talked about the nuclear proliferation which concerns me obviously as we know with pakistan's weapons right now it was after he talked about terrorism. i was in an audience smaller than this and i was one of those guys it's annoying they raise their hands and then the defense speech before the question. i asked the question at the end of my speech what is the greatest in the next years and he didn't miss a beat he just said the greatest threat is the

fact we are not educating our children in this nation. think about this. there's a wonderful mckinsey study if you have a chance to mckinsey 2,009 disparity study. the look of the impact of in such low graduation rates and if you can close to the disparity between minorities in this country in terms of high school graduation rates you can increase the gdp by over trillion dollars but what is even scarier is the work force is getting more diverse. the majority of the work force in the decades ahead in your lifetime are going to be minorities and if we continue to fall, failed to heal the gaps of the majority is less and less educated and we continue to fall, not retreating nearly enough people from the science and technology engineering and math, falling on the people they graduate from colleges what's going to happen to the competitive, what's going to happen to the globe so this is what i say when i talk with barack obama i was on the phone yesterday not talking politics

talking policy and when i see their conservative agenda to make k-12 education more successful in america and again this is the only area that republicans many who are staunch republicans as opposed to ideological who have the ambition say they've done an incredible job, k-12 education moving the country better in the right direction but more importantly the college students because i school is not enough. the unemployment rate for college graduates is around 5% for people who don't have a college education are not 25% so what we do to make college more affordable? right now the stark difference between all the republican candidates but i've been watching these debates and the president with a proven record and there is obvious. dewaal -- and this was in the last congressional will come a congressional budget, the pell grants to read the we want to see a nation that makes college less and less affordable or do

we want a nation that has call which more and more affordable? this is what i say that i see what's happening right now and i will give you tomorrow examples because it is giving me the chance to pick it to something i'm passionate about and i passionately support the president. you cannot during times of fiscal austerity -- and we need to cut government spending -- what we could repeat that we need to cut government spending to revive a big city mayor. we need to cut federal spending. we cannot continue to spend at the rate -- you can't balance your budget by saying i'm going to spend more and take less. it won't work. but listen to me right now. when they need to go on a bill yet they could not a pound of flesh and what i mean by that is that in times of fiscal austerity it cuts education, cut taxes to hire your education. i'm the first mayor to tell you

with a high-profile expenditure in my city money is not the answer. it's a necessary but not sufficient. investments in high your education are the answer to see a system like one of the greatest public education systems on the globe continue to cut their budget spending more on prisons in california than they are in the university system and the system that was launching more and more engineers, doctors, scientists, the illusions and artists, inventors to see the system and what is happening to it right now because of budget cuts and budget cuts and more and more out of the reach of regular people that is a crime in this country so we will never be able to fuel our economy unless we have systems to prepare the used to not just compete but lead in the 21st century. the last thing i will see which is something i know obama believes as well and another reason i follow him is another lunacy in the nation we take kids into the country sometimes

as early as a few months old we educate them k-12. they get their college education. i was talking to the president of the samford of university just last month in october. educate them, get them graduate degrees and as soon as the fenech will kick them out of the country. you know how many people in the nation graduate from graduate school? their student visas are done and we try to drive them out of the nation? i can point to so many of the industrialist inventors and the nation that for immigrants. our immigration policy is still forming and that's why obama and others support the gerry. we pay for people's education and support that. if they show they are great citizens of america and want to become job creators as i hear the term all the time while we kicking them out of the country? i use that to answer to questions. now on the immigration? no problem. other questions? yes, sir.

>> [inaudible] >> are you a junior or senior? [laughter] >> you talked about the idea of important issues relative to national security. without addressing and global security? and the issue which barack obama seems to have swept under the rug he refuses to even acknowledge the terminology in speeches relative to global climate change or global warming better called a global warming because it does sound like the catastrophe that is in progress if nothing is done. the important -- i will be like you and give a little speech before i ask the question. >> i can't criticize you, you can criticize me when i get a stick in my eye.

>> like policies like equal rights for citizens or equal pay for women were being able to have any sexual identity you have and not be condemned, all of these important social issues that are driven by your conspiracy of love, which i love the term, they don't have a timeframe associated with them. we are experiencing a ticking time bomb with climate change and the fuse is growing shorter down to now about maybe a decade to 15 years before we have to take dramatic action before tipping point scientifically acknowledge and on refuted tipping plants are realized such as the permafrost releasing vast

amounts of methane into the atmosphere. our leaders are feeling us. i would contend that they are feeling us is almost too warm of the term. they almost should be subject to crimes against humanity in my mind. every academy of science from every industrialized nation all agree global climate change is happening and to a large extent it is almost irrefutably due to -- >> what we take your point and let me -- you're point is a very good one, and you talk like my mother does when i would get bad grades. it's a crime against humanity must develop your mind and serve your country. but look, you are saying that we are a ticking time bomb running

out of time. i'm telling you right now the explosions are already starting. i live in a city that has been impacted by our neglect. i've got epidemic asthma rates from air quality that is horrendous. my city is one of the hottest places in the state because of lack of green space and so much paved roads to buy half epidemic obesity rates for my kids and that is an environmental issue and high unemployment rates. you and i both know that is an environmental issues. why? because as we have taken incredible investments from the federal government, programs the obama administration made to deal with climate issues, what have we done? retired disaffected youth and put them into programs to retrofit city building because i was last night at an awards

ceremony where may become a year michael bloomberg got an award and he's given me the best political the vice - forgotten. it's one simple thing and i advise any young people coming into politics to follow, he said if you were going to go into politics if you were going to be a major, first become a billionaire. it's incredible advice. [laughter] so we read the league of conservation voters award ceremony. i gave the keynote speech and mayor bloomberg received the award because 50% of the world's population lives now in cities and by 2015 it will be 75%. if cities to more like mayor bloomberg has done while my state has pulled down the goals mayor bloomberg has pushed his up. my state got out of the greenhouse grass agreement which includes, mean to jersey my state has pulled out of them and other states like new york have

stayed in. but mayor bloomberg and others have done is incredible things with retrofitting buildings. he has a goal by 2017 to reduce the carbon emissions of all of the city buildings by 30% to would already 12% of the way there and he only started in 2005. when we first started doing it and mayors like him and me had conversations with president obama key found ways to make funding available for cities where the majority, 80% live in cities directly in the suburbs to start taking action. so i agree there is a rhetoric problem in the country. democrats get very shy with rhetoric sometimes because we have the other side always trying to twist our words. you are ever to lead to over regulating business and costing jobs. when i sit down with barack obama he gets it right away. so there will be young people coming yes, retrofitting buildings. we've done programs for senior citizens with federal dollars

creating union jobs by the way with benefits and pensions and the like, stockholm folks by retrofitting senior citizens, lobar their energy costs 25%, lowering their carbon emissions, creating jobs. so i am a guy telling the white house as i mentioned have a lot of conversations back-and-forth and the last conversation we talked about tone and rhetoric because it does matter but i know that when it comes to the epa standards the head of the conservation voters yesterday was going on about what one side says denying science that human beings have -- this is an irrefutable evidence now that these things have an impact and you have another side that says we accept responsibility. we may not be moving as far and fast but we accept responsibility and a lot of things that don't catch the national attention people don't like talking about regulations

but the administration passed a lot controlling emissions from factories and cleaning up kohl not to where we want it to be but taking steps to change standards in the united states of america so we can discuss how we can encourage the obama administration as a lot of us do to partner with us to find ways to lower carbon emissions and a deal with this already exploding bomb but right now there is a stark choice i can have obama who has proven to his actions as he was called last night a champion for the environment versus somebody from the other side and we have a lot of choices the believe the government should get out of the way and drill and do with the have to do. to me it is clear what the choices for americans and those of us who know as you said i love how you phrase it and i will steal the common good speakers borrow from great speakers, the issues don't have times on them that the environment will return to the point unless we move and the people most affected by this are

the poor and vulnerable populations. kids right now to respiratory problems for the rest of their lives driving up health care costs for us all because we've allowed the air quality to get so bad. so we have work to do. federal level work i have work to do in new jersey as we continue to retreat from environmental collisions and lawsuits and the like but ultimately right now the choice is so clear if you are a champion given the choices we have i would choose barack obama a thousand times before i would choose somebody on the other side of the aisle. one more very quick question. >> the last question has to move and inspire the room. if somebody doesn't cry i'm coming after you. [laughter] i put you on the no-fly list so there's a lot of questions. [laughter] >> i'm a freshman here. >> i from chester new hampshire about an hour from here but i have a younger brother who has

sarah will palsy. you talked earlier about education and seems to me like more and more lately children like him are sort of falling through the cracks. we don't pay attention to them as much as we should be so my question is what you think this is our obligation is and how should we educate them and treat them and things like that? >> i can try to find out and i'm sure there's obama folks here who can find out. i know arne duncan from my conversations with him as passionately concerned to make sure every child in america has abundant pathways towards education. and a lot of the hidden learners in our country people with special needs do often fall through the cracks, and so i know from our president of all local level we are doing a lot to make sure that we create a real solid educational pathways for every one of our kids coming and i've heard this have more conferences than i care to remember. the special-education as one of

the greatest areas we waste money in america. we make investments that don't get a lot of return but they are becoming the best practice models in the country for special needs education so i know that is what the ad fenestration said. the answers are not going to come from me when it comes to education we will find the best practices and create incentives for people to follow in those best practices. so again, i am so confident arne duncan as a guide is dealing with these issues and talking about these issues specifically things they are doing but i can't tell you who the city of newark new jersey we try to reinvent our practices to make sure we get returns when we invest taxpayer dollars and prieta environments that are nurturing to the children and at the end of the day as i saw already kids from california to work n.j.-based and up and give a call to the conscience of the country that we may one day be a

nation with liberty and justice for all for everyone. i want to thank everybody tonight. it's a privilege this is my first visit to new hampshire. you guys need a and a year in this town? >> yes camano? i have to go back. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]udiblee

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> just ahead, a look at the impact of redistricting on congressional and state elections. after that, live coverage of the british house of commons as prime minister david cameron addresses members following last week's summit of european union nations on the debt crisis. then we are live as republican senator dick lugar and former colleague, democrat sam nunn, assess their 1991 legislation that a to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. and later the senate returns at 2 p.m. eastern for a period of general speeches, followed by debate on ambassadorial nominations for the czech republic and el salvador.

>> now a discussion on the potential impact of redistricting on congressional and state elections. speakers include former agriculture secretary dan glickman, "washington post" political reporter aaron blake, and david one of the cook political report. this hour and 10 in the event was hosted by the bipartisan policy center.

>> good morning, good afternoon, everybody. welcome, thank you for joining us. i'm dan glickman, a senior fellow here at the bipartisan policy center, and wanted to briefly touch on those of you who haven't been here before, bpc was founded by the four former symmetry leaders, senator daschle, dole, baker and mitchell. to develop and promote bipartisan policy and bipartisan solutions to problems. so currently we are focusing on housing, health care, energy and national, energy, national homeland security, transportation, economic policy, food and nutrition related issue. i'm pleased to be here as the co-chair of the bpc democracy project. unfortunately, my fellow

co-chair could not be here but we have an exciting discussion nonetheless. as the election year approaches there are a host of political issues we hope to explore and redistricting is one of them. from the creation of partisan incumbents protected district to push for more non-person redistricting commissions this conversation will explore the current state of play with an eye on how it affects the house, the senate and presidential races next year. joining us this afternoon is the "washington post" aaron blake. he covered national politics and is one of the brightest little reporters we have. he writes regularly for the fix which is the post top political blog which is a must-read for anyone in washington. next to aaron is david wasserman. david is house editor of the cook political report where he is responsible for handicapping and analyzing u.s. house races. he served as an analyst for the nbc news election night decision desk in 2008-2010 and has

appeared on numbers of tv news programs over the period of the last several years. david is one of the foremost expert on redistricting as a country. in april 2011 he authored that are no district, the cook political report comprehensive 20 of redistricting outlook, and in 2006 is given the university of virginia's prize for a study of congressional redistricting standards. finally, leaving our effort this afternoon is the democracy project directory at the bpc, director john fortier. john comes to the bpc nearly after 20 years at the aei american enterprise institute where he authored numerous books and publications, regularly appears on television and radio, discussing politics and is known for his knowledge on elections and government institution. i might say that as a former house member, i have a passing interest in this subject, and would also are fortunate to have

another former house member to move my colleague, charlie stenholm of texas was probably had more than a passing interest on the subject. and i'm sure he will help as we start this discussion. let's go to john who's moderating it today. john, the floor is yours. >> i'm going to say a few things now but i'm going to turn to david and aaron for more substantive remarks and there was a something in the end as well. what we are hoping to do today is really just look at where we are in redistricting. a process we do every 10 years. we are not done yet. we are certainly well along the way, but a number of states are done, some are not quite yet even released their plans, and many are under challenge or there's some question as to what the final plan will look like. what we would like to do is get a sense of how it's going to benefit republicans and democrats, where the seats have moved, where the mighty competitive seats or not, what is income and protection, a

question of creating majority minority districts. where the whole set of issues we want to get a landscape on. with two of the best people here in washington do this. first i would turn to david wasserman and then turn to aaron. will have discussions and look for your comments from the audience. >> thanks a lot and thanks to the bipartisan policy center for having us here to cover this often under love the topic, which is really unearthed every 10 years for journalists, academics, lawyers, pundits, cartographers, demographers and everyone else who loves it. but when you think about what most americans believe about congress, the polarization tends to be blamed on congress and the whims of congress operate these days, the tennessee blamed on cable news. i think more americans might be best served by looking down the street. i think a couple of things have happened over the course of the last 10 to 15 years that are very significant to redistricting. the first is that we have seen

self sorting within the american electorate. the cook group undertook a study of virginia data going back to the early 1990s. what we found was that there is a 15% decline in the number of voters living in precincts that were within 10 points of the statewide average it away. so if americans have already redistricted with their feet it's easier than ever for members of legislators, consult who are drawing these maps to the essentially quarantined and isolate voters of the opposing party into small set of districts, and make the rest of the districts favorable to their own party. and in 2010, we saw this polarization at work between these two very different sides of the electorate. in 2010, out of the 66 districts that democrats lost in the house, a 2% contained a cracker

barrel, just 20% contained a whole foods market. so there's organic nostalgic divide that we see is only accelerated in the redistricting process as republicans seek to build their districts around cracker barrels and democrats seek to build their district around whole foods. but i would argue that in the long-term democrats are at a disadvantage in the house, partially as a result of redistricting, and partially as a result of the nature of their coalition today. which is more reliant than ever on minority voters, younger voters, college educated voters, all of them tend to be clustered in tight geographic areas that are easier and easier for republicans who picked up a lot of legislators and governorship after 2010 to essentially isolate into a small number of districts across no states. so if democrats are going to

have any hope of reaching the house in 2012, or any upcoming decade, they are really going to have to compete on republican leaning turf because in our estimate it's possible for democrats to win the total popular vote for the house, but simply as a result of the democratic coalition is made up today, and of the way districts are drawn, it's possible democrats could win the total popular vote for the house that lose the house by up to two dozen seats. so i think that's one of the takeaways from redistricting cycle, and i'm eager to hear aaron, aaron's thoughts and john's thoughts and your questions from all of you. >> i'm glad that david gave it over you. now made i will talk more about where we stand in this current cycle. i think that going into the cycle, the big headline was that public has had come and david can tell me if i'm right on this, something close to unprecedented control over the drawing of new districts. essentially republicans control the legislature, the

governorship in enough states to draw 200 congressional seats were as democrats control the drawing of only about 50 seats. it's a four to one advantage would go to the cycle thinking hey, republicans are going to dominate this, they will solidify their majority, you know, let's see what happens. since been what we've seen is that essentially republicans which were so maxed out and a lot of the spaces they already have, that they were not able to add in the peterson case having to add democratic seats. so it's been a constant balancing act which they have been trying to great opportunities for themselves but also focus on shoring up. and a lot of states, specifically in the midwest, states like pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, shoring up is really the name of the game. they weren't able to add seats for themselves. so where we are right now is a situation where democrats have actually been able to create more winnable districts to this point, and a lot of that has to do with what's happened in the

courts and what's happened in a limited number of states that hand control over tweep commission. the decisions made by the commissions and courts have so far been very good to democrats, specifically in states like texas where a continuing court battle, threw them out for 2012. in colorado with the court drew the map after the legislature deadlocked and couldn't come to agreement. arizona with heavy commission where the republicans are fighting tooth and nail to get their proposal overturned. and california where they have in your cities redistricting commission which essentially through the whole map into disarray, drew a bunch of incumbents to get and it's great a situation where democrats could add maybe three or maybe four, five seats. in those states alone, i think democrats are going to be able to win six, seven, eight congressional seats in the 2012

election, and that writer is a third of the way they needed the effort to retake the majority. so the other part of this is though that republicans insist that they've done a good job of shoring up their members. often in states like pennsylvania and ohio this will be by a couple points. it won't be a situation where the district is not out of play for democrats, but the members to become safer. so as a lot of things with politics, you ask you decide who's winning and you have a good argument to say why they're winning, but i think that david mixner good point in saying that in the end right now the map is already drawn where there are more republican leaning districts, and they will only be able to grow that advantage as a result of redistricting. >> all right, i'm going to tell a story that is similar to errands, i think it a lot of us going into this cycle does he did finish for republicans, but quickly came to realize that because republicans had already made significant gains, despite the 2010th election, but over

time that the gains and the control of the legislatures were in place of what had already large delegation. one feasible for them to expand and/or there were times when their majority minority districts which were set in the essentially couldn't gain any more seats, so there are a number of states throughout the south and some through the midwest republicans really have the advantage but have done the shoring up. and until a few weeks or six weeks ago or so, i think you would've said maybe it looks like a relatively fair fight between republicans and democrats. before all these changes started to happen, i agree with erin, some of the posts map original map moves by party and other, other courts are putting things in favor of democrats. there were a couple of states where there were some big changescome and hear republicans in north carolina, looks like they still may make democrats lose anywhere between two to

four seats is a good bet. illinois of course is a state where democrats control the process and are likely to make the republicans lose perhaps up to six seats, four to six seed gets a big changes there but a lot of little changes as republicans added a cd or limited a democrat here and added some padding to their own members district. but again it is places like colorado, texas with court decision, arizona, florida where we're still waiting on a big state where there's some question as to how these newly passed rules, passed by the voters on the ballot, whether they will be invalid or not, whether that will affect what is already a significant republican advantage in a congressional delegation to ohio where the plan is we don't know what's going to happen with the plan. their plan is on hold essentially, or maybe on hold if longer if democrats get enough votes or enough signatures to put this on the ballot in november.

to all those things do point to some advantage towards democrats in the final analysis. one other thing to note is there is a continuing realignment. if you look especially at the south with all of the stories over many years of how the once solid democratic south has moved to become a much more republican territory, the strongest republican region come to think that might not continue but it still is continuing. easy retirements in a number of places. you see them at the north carolina pushing republicans to have more seats there. potential places like georgia and others where republicans have put some of the few remaining blue dogs in the region into trouble. so you may see republicans and others losing seats overall, but solidifying their gains in the south, adding seats where you will see an increasing polarization. in one thought i have had, it would take several things going right for republicans but it's

not an possible that you could imagine they will not be a single white blue dog left in the south after this election. that would depend on jim cooper in tennessee, we haven't seen, i think will was the property will retain his seat. the group that was founded essentially by white conservative blue dogs may not even have one of those in their membership at the end of this cycle. so some continuing realignment. competitive districts, i think it's very hard to tell how many competitive districts will have in him. competitive districts, two types of competitive districts. districts. one would be where a party is trying to put an intel intel or something like a teacher or where republicans have made that historic district much more republican, much harder to win if keith sure to win that seat i think down the road that's a difficult seat for another democrats ever take over because it's heavily republican district. but in terms of relatively fair fight relatively fair electoral

distribution of the votes is a little hard to say how many there'll be but the sense is i think there will be fewer of them. just to get a few thoughts on the last three decades, in the 1980s we had 367 of our 435 seats not change hands. so only 70 or so seats changed hands at all during the decade, once the first elections happened in the 1990s with 319 seats that didn't change hands and in 2000 we had 327 seats change hands. so you see the universe of seats still not that large even in these districts, as we've got 10 years to go to know the answer to this question but given that many of those changes were due to some relying factors, seats that were conservative seats in the south that eventually moved to republican hands, we might not see as many of those coming out of this set of maps. a couple other things to think about, on the competitiveness of front is california.

california, there is good news in competitiveness. california the commission for the first time. there was contentiousness within the commission. that was in california and map in the last 10 years which was perhaps the most uncompetitive map you have ever seen of all of the 53 districts that were intended to be either republican or democratic. only one seat changed hands out of the plan that was made, almost 530 years of representation, only six of them went, four of them went not according to plan. here with the commission udc more competition. now you might say anything would be better than the past map, and is probably true so it's not what this commission which technically did not have competition as its mandate, but ultimately has created a number of seats and certainly a big jumble of seats where many incumbents are choosing districts, running against each other, figuring that even where they will run or whether they

will run but also their at least so far been very so-called fair fight a districts. see in divided governments not being able to agree on which member of congress to eliminate, which district. the party will sometimes put a republican democrat in a district and say we will make it fair, will fight it out and see what happens. i have one in my come in iowa which was greeted by a commission between leonard boswell and tom latham, but there are not really a whole lot of these other systems with seen in the past and we are not seeing partly because of places where republicans have controlled and the places that are controlled, where they are losing seats are controlled by. finally, i wanted to say a few things about the commissions or nonpolitical places. i mentioned california. we here at bpc are doing a report which will come out at the end of the process in 2012 looking at some of the states that are using non-political

process or using a nonpolitical drawing of lines as the primary process, or at least non-poco bipartisan or nonpartisan. if you said you might look at is on. iowa has for four decades now, four times redistricted, had a commission of civil servants draw the maps. there's a little bit of political involved. this great constraint on how to draw the districts in terms of keeping committees gather, keeping counties together, not cross let's. but they have like the proximate to the little opposition to the process. but we have seen a couple of seats, california, arizona which had its citizens commissions which are new, especially in california and not in use for the second time in arizona, where there's been tremendous partisan fighting, about this nonpartisan commission. here you have arguments as to what lawyers do i, what mapmakers to hire, and the more extreme case here in arizona,

the governor trying to remove the nonpartisan member of the commission and the court reinstating the essentially. so we'll see the outcome. i know a number of people are not completely unhappy with the outcome in california. i think democrats are more happy than republican but in arizona the process of nonpartisan redistricting commission is broken down. our report is to say there are lots of ways to do these things, lots of ways that these type of nonpolitical processes. they're not always in and we we might have something to say. >> i wonder if it might be appropriate to ask charlie stenholm to comment, and maybe in terms of his own experience as a white blue dog democrat, kind of the leader, founder, he is mr. blue, he is even wearing a blue today, you know. but how you observe this proce process. >> well, just a few points. and i agree with the overview

that's been given here about all the nuances and the what is, and we will see. but, you know, i believe very strongly to those in this town that are interested in policy, you better get redistricting fixed or you'll never get the kind of agreement on policy. the book, on the wing nuts, it's very clear, 10% of american population, are very liberal. 10% are very conservative. they control the party process and that means that in most of the districts you describe the only way a democrat can be beaten is in the primary. and the only way to republican can be beaten is in a primary. and, therefore, you have the polarization that comes naturally with it. i committed the sin in texas of representing a rather republican district for 26 years, and mr. rove and mr. delay and governor perry decided that that

was not to be done. and read through the lines not in the regular order but after taking control of the legislature, we drew it, and pygmy with republican, but not necessarily a fair fight. he got 465,000 folks, and i got 200,000. the results were predictable, but now texas plan -- playing by the singleton had their district thrown out by the court but interestingly texas is a majority minority state, but the texas legislature chose to make it a little bit more anglo, and that didn't work with the courts, predictably. we will see how that comes out. but again, you know, i have very, very strong feelings on this, and i would end the way i started. being involved in policy, budget policy and all of this, i'm often asked a question, okay charlie, you complained about the system.

everybody is complaining about the system now, it's broken. our political system is broken and nobody complains. okay, you talk about it. if there's one thing you would change, only one thing that you could change, what would it be? easy, redistricting. if you really want to change the way washington works you change the redistricting process to get more competitive districts. i had a competitive district. but now, you're exactly right, and i'm not sure the country is going to be much better off with the polarization. but that's for the people to decide. but ultimately you've got to let the people in a bipartisan, nonpartisan computer-driven redistricting process would do more to help a lot of ills of our political system. spent maybe i can follow up with both of you to take one aspect of that point, is are there any places that we might see another bid decade redistricting? texas has somewhat opened the

door. redistricting of less significant changes. where do you see possibilities for that, or do you think that we're not going to see that in the next 10 years? >> you are living proof that when you pair and come up with an income is not always a fair fight in a district. and i think texas is one of the places where we could see in the decade redistricting because the income the map that was imposed by a federal court in san antonio will probably lead the democrats and minority getting three out of the four new districts in texas. they don't necessary provide opportunities for democrats elsewhere in the state outside of a selected few minority majority of districts. but we could see that map overturned by a republican legislature and governor in 2014 on the basis of the court having drawn the map for the upcoming

cycle. and we will see what the supreme court decides to do. one of the questions i have though, john, about what reform actually work from the standpoint of how do you create competitive districts, how do you get incumbents away from the shackles of primaries, is california. and in california there something else just beside the nonpartisan, bipartisan commission redistricting that is very renewed from politics, and that's the new primary system in california. where instead of candidates running for the own party's nomination in june, it's an all party primary for the top two finishers, because of party advanced to the general election. and theoretically, i say theoretically because we haven't really seen the results of this system of primary yet. it ought to free incumbents from thinking about june before they think about moving to the metal

in november. and so we'll see if we get a more bipartisan cooperation kind of system out of california where there's actually incentive to campaign towards the middle, and instant of governing to work with the other party. >> how many of the district in california would you say are in a generic year of a fair fight district between both parties? the electoral underlying numbers are reasonably balanced. >> that's a great question as well. because in california, polarization within the electorate means that even if you create a fair geographic set of 53 new districts, that only 10 to 15 of them are really all that competitive. and in 1990, that number might give it a little bit greater than it is now. it's still not even a third of the 53 seats that might be in play between parties. but even that would be a dramatic improvement over, as

john mentioned, the fact that only one seat changed hands in all the last decade, even 265 separate house races. >> go ahead. >> i want to go back, talk about the decade redistricting, something that happened very rarely actually, i talk about texas, georgia also did it in, what year was that? 2003, 2005, something like that. what this requires that is a set of circumstances that don't generally apply to most states, which is the profit is easily -- it is the control are under one party control in and have waited a decade it becomes under another parties control. the one party would in other words, have to take of the statehouse, the government on sunday of all the levers and they say okay, we want to make a power play and want to draw new congressional or state legislative map that will allow us to consolidate this new power that we have. so a lot of things have to have

been over for that to occur. right now republicans in most other states where they feasibly could have the trifecta, they've already got a pic so i think that if we're to see it happen it would probably be on the democratic side after they have had a couple of elections and got the power back. but it's a very politically fraught decision to go through something like that. and we saw that in texas obviously with what happened with the supreme court throwing out part of the map. pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, maybe minnesota, places like that swing regions, sort of -- >> pennsylvania is an anomaly blue state that is under republican control, with wisconsin kind of long the same line. minnesota is but control. if republicans drop impressive met in pennsylvania, or as we've seen the map in wisconsin, it's not terribly aggressive but it does shore up the majority to

some extent. we could see the democrats make a move to roll those back if they do want to regain power. >> i just want to go back to a moment with charley because i had a district not altogether different, probably a little less conservative but it was a mixed district politically. and i remember, redistricting in kansas not like redistricting in texas. the district are relatively homogeneous. but i recalled that i never, worrying about the pace of my party was not a preoccupation with me. i mean, and so, like i -- the race we were on the liberal concerted motion, on the support for the president and your party. and since i wasn't near 50% on everything. i give myself as a failure. i mean, one, because i wanted, i was pretty much -- but number

two i knew that if i want to far to one side, i would get killed in my district just because the nature of the republican-democratic makes. what does that mean? that meant as a matter of policy i can in some sense was liberated and for your and i could kind of make my deals with republicans and work across the aisle and i wasn't too afraid of losing my race because i did that. and at times i would also work my own basis. so i guess what i'm saying is to echo a little bit what you are saying is the nature of the shifting process paralyzed people to be unable to make those kinds of coalitions and across the poor decisions, which ended to the benefit of the country as a whole. so if there's anything we can do in this process, whether in redistricting or elsewhere and to encourage a free your spirit to be able to work on the substance of policy for our

country that don't paralyze us, that's a positive benefit. and i guess if redistricting is moving more and more in this direction, what are some anecdotes to this? like open primaries? is that an anecdote to this? let everybody vote in the primary? is that an anecdote to this? i don't know. i would ask that question. >> or if you want to comment on some of its states that have moved the nonpartisan redistricting processes. >> yeah, what other solutions are the out there? to we just accept a? >> i think california, depend on what we see over the next couple years, could be held up by some reformers as a model. because unlike other states with redistricting commissions that have partisans appointed by legislators and the state legislators on either side, california's commission was generally fairly independent from politics altogether.

politics as california's in california. so this was really the first redistricting commission that operated truly without regard to incumbents and to partisan data in the process. that's one element of it, certainly. but congress can also regulate the election of its own members. and for longtime congressman john tanner from tennessee, before he retired, advocated a bill that would restrict legislatures ability to split counties and localities excessively in the redistricting process. and as you know just by looking at some anti-citable districts on maps, the abuse in splitting counties and cities and precincts, placing great burdens on the elected and administered to carry out elections with the counties divided 10 different ways, that's something that congress could address if there was the willpower to do so.

>> i think the way california looks in the next couple elections will be very interesting. it's a good government because as david said, a lot of the states, we love all the states together as commission states. new jersey, washington, idaho, arizona, hawaii and california but these are all considered commission states along with iowa. essentially every state except for california and made one or two others that are really insignificant, that our policies in the process. they may be bipartisan. they may be revoked and appointing with the democratic appointees, but even that come to look at a state like the jersey were essentially the people who are a part of this commission are being appointed by the path the people in each party at the statehouse and state senate leaders, and so those people go in the commission process looking out for certain people's political interest.

arizona, we've seen how politics becomes a part of the process in essentially bipartisan commission where republicans saw the independent chairwoman as actually being favoring the democrats, and they removed her briefly. so if this california thing turns out, and we see some turnover, we see more competitive races, you may see other states start looking at the bipartisan citizens redistricting commission. the problem with that, of course, is the way became what is by referendum. and each state has their own process for a referendum. and if you don't have that process, and you leave it up to state legislators to pass a bill that is going to this kind of commission, i think that your chances are probably going to be pretty slim. >> we've seen right demographic change in our country over the 10 years, the last set of maps came out. what can you tell us about the growth of majority moderate

districts? particular with the hispanic population, we are missing the growth, how much growth, how much of the new districts reflecting that growth? >> here's a statistic that might surprise some people. but in 2010, the democratic caucus that was elected in the house had a record low percentage of white males big it was down to 53% of the democratic caucus. it's virtually certain that in 2013 when congress is sworn in, for the first time ever minorities and women will be the majority of one party's caucus in the house. and so democrats will celebrate that diversity certainly, and would celebrate the fact that they have a fairly varied group within their caucus. there's a trade off for sure they are in democrats have very lopsided advantages in those districts where most of them

were from at the expense of minority voters having, say, other districts. but i would also argue that this raises questions for the future, and the career potential of a lot of minority members of congress from those districts. if they are representing only certain segments of the population in the state as a result of their districts being packed with as many minority voters as possible, then the question arises, can they really advanced to statewide office from there? are those districts springboards for those candidates to be able to compete on a statewide basis? and i think that's one question for democrats especially, and for minority candidates in the future. >> i think the point about the caucus potentially being majority women and minorities and then celebrate that, you know, they would probably be

celebrating it but the celebration will be tempered because it probably still be in the minority. i think that if they are to regain the majority, that would be less likely to happen because they would be winning more of these wider and more conserved districts with probably more white male candidates. >> when we talk about minority districts in this redistricting cycle, one interesting thing is the evolution of the majority black districts. we've seen a lot of cases where the black population has left urban areas and so these districts have had to be stretched out into the suburbs. sometimes out into rural areas in states like illinois where jesse jackson, jr.'s district is drawn out to essentially a role county. i was talking to him on the phone recently and he was talking about how he went out and is hanging out with corn farmers recently. he never thought he would be doing that. also in detroit where they spent a lot of black population migration and loss, john

conyers, two black incumbents from detroit have seen their districts out in the suburbs. .. >> oddly-drawn districts in a lot of states, and really it's helped republicans kind of solidify their broad majority, you know, the majority of districts nationwide are republican leaning, or at least

republican leaning, and these majority black districts and majority hispanic districts have generally assisted in that process. >> just to follow up, maybe you could say a little something about there has been for the last several cycles sometimes alliances between republicans and african-american democrats to create majority/minority districts and also then, therefore, create more republican districts in the remaining territory. we've seen that in some places, missouri is one case. so say something about that, and then following on aaron's point, there certainly are, um, there's a theory that if african-americans are elected or minorities are elected to a majority/minority district, they might become safe enough that they could probably give up a little territory, maybe that you'd be better off as a democratic strategist to dilute those districts a little bit. but there's, obviously, some conflict between some of the individual members, i'm thinking about donna edwards in maryland and across the country. so there are stories like this

across the country that you can enlighten us on? >> the one i was thinking about was in ohio where you mentioned republicans have drafted a map. they've got strong majorities in the state legislature, but democrats are threatening to put the map that they draw on a referendum. we all saw what just happened with the referendum in ohio on the union organizing bill. well, democrats are now threatening to put the republican-drawn redistricting map on the referendum. in order to, to prevent that from happening, republicans need to get two-thirds or three-fourths? two-thirds majorities in the state legislature when they pass this map, then it's not able to be put as a referendum. so what they've been doing is working with black members of the state legislature trying to get them onboard with their redistricting proposal, trying to get that two-thirds majority. so that's maybe the best example that we're seeing this year of

republicans working with african-americans. >> i'll ask one -- do you want to -- i'll ask one more question, and then we're going to open it up to the audience. so you've looked at some of these maps, they're not all done yet, but where's the one you say this can't be by accident, of course, gerrymandering comes from the term where eldridge gary had a district drawn that looked like a sal hander -- salamander, so what's the strangest district you have out there? >> we've been taking advantage of this. we started a contest in july called name that district where we take one of these new districts that's been drawn, and we put a picture of it on our blog on the fix, and we tell our readers, essentially, tell us what this looks like to you. and the response to this has been unbelievable really. the illinois second district or the seventh maybe, somebody surmised that if you turn it

sideways, it looks like the mtv character beavis eating a slice of picture, and if utility the district sideways, that's exactly what it is. but my favorite district, and we did a contest on this district was maryland's third district. this is a state where democrats control the process, and they drew a district that, essentially, outlines the bay a little bit and kind of reaches in and pulls in a bunch of different things. and the picture that we put on the blog just happened to be green, and somebody said, oh, this looks like a praying mantis. and if you put it next to a praying mantis, sure enough, it looks exactly like a praying mantis. and if you know what a praying mantis looks like, it's got little antenna and, you know, obviously, arms hanging off. so the contest has been very enlightening, and i think that, you know, somebody should -- >> the praying mantis is not happy with this. [laughter] >> i did get some hate mail about that one.

>> well, if i could have a stab at this too. east texas under one republican proposal this year, there was a district that was a dead ringer for elvis' haircut. in illinois the last decade, democrats drew the 17th district in western illinois to look like a rabbit on a skateboard, and that was the nickname for that district. probably one of the grossest gerrymanders besides maryland's third this summer was republicans' ohio ninth district just barely hugging lake erie. and it's been named the mistake by the lake. and for the longest time i was wondering, um, you know, who had a better chance of winning outside of ohio, lebron james or dennis kucinich. and i think, finally, we know the answer to that question now that dennis kucinich has said that he'll run in that mistake by the lake. >> um, all right, i am going to open it up -- >> one quick comment. >> yes. >> and a question --

[inaudible] on the comment, i agree, the california experiment is going to be fascinating -- >> put your mic up. >> it's going to be fascinating to watch. louisiana has had it for a long time, smaller state, but it's going to be fascinating to watch that, and it could offer some of the answers, dan, to your question. second, a little anecdote. in the 1990 texas redistricting, martin frost, my colleague from dallas, got two rural counties. i mean, he'd been accustomed to representing the inner city of dallas, and he got two rural counties. within 48 hours martin called me and said, charlie, i'm going to need your help in the next election. would you come in to my two rural counties and say i'm okay for a city boy? and i said, sure, martin. it's not because we're good friends, we are. it's not because we're fellow democrats, we are. it's because you're going to be a better congressman this year than you were last year.

[laughter] and he will admit can that and, dan, that's what you were saying a moment ago, the fact that you have to do more than just give lip service to a different perspective makes you a better congressperson. now, my question is talking about the voting rights act, will the day ever come in which it is no longer needed or applicable, and if not, why not? >> i think if voting rights act is no longer applicable, it'll be because the supreme court decides that it's not longer applicable. but if you look at the likelihood of congress taking any acts to the voting rights act, i just don't think it's there. i don't think democrats, obviously, would ever stand for it, and i don't think republicans would ever want to have the specter of actually dismantling section five of the voting rights act hanging around their neck. but i think over the long term democrats will realize if they

spend long enough in the house minority that the voting rights act is, actually, really working to their detriment, and a number of democrats have already realized that. um, and in virtually every state where republicans have control they're seeking to isolate democratic voters and, of course, that's easier to do given the geographic inefficiency of today's democratic coalition. but in many states in the south they've used the voting rights act as justification for packing those districts with minorities. and so even in florida the state you had some reform measures on the ballot that have succeededs or in the fair districts florida amendments requiring districts to be geographically compact and blind to partisan data, there's still a justification being use withed by both -- being used by both several delegates of

african-americans who are democrats and members of the legislature to preserve districts that snake, for example, from jacksonville through the north florida swamp to orlando. and that's robbing other districts of democratic minority voters who democrats would need in order to pick up more seats. >> i would just agree with what david said. i mean, this this is, the coalin for overturning this in congress doesn't exist and isn't going to exist. democrats would so irritate the congressional black caucus, and republicans would prefer that this thing be around for as long as possible, so it's not something that congress is going to do unless for some reason the cbc decided that they wanted to get rid of it in order to help the party out which i don't see happening anytime soon. >> if you talk to election lawyers, they are sensing that there's a bit of a delicate dance between the possibility of the democratic obama justice department weighing in on some of these plans and a court which

might rein them back in. so many activists are sometimes cheering on the justice department to be more circumspect about some of the plans the republicans have put forward, and the republican legislatures are often ignoring or bypassing the justice department going right to court, not always to their -- you know, not always winning in court. but there's some sense that perhaps a democratic justice department going too far might be an opening for a court which has made some hints that justice roberts' famous statement that it's the sort of thing as divvying us up by race is in the back of people's minds. the narrowing of it or certain sections might be the result of a court challenge. all right. gary here. >> thanks.

i'm garrett mitchell, and i write the mitchell report, and i want to, i want to sort of lay out another thesis on the table that i know david is familiar with, but it goes to congressman ten holm's point about if you want to get a policy that works again, you've got to fix redistricting. alongside that, and david and aaron, i'd love both your comments. i just know that david is, we've sort of had this discussion before in another forum. um, a few years ago a fellow by the name of bill bishop wrote a book called "the big sort," and rather than for me to, you know, sort of articulate what the thesis of "the big sort" is, i think it's fair to say that he offers another point of view which is that the redistricting that has been going on in the country recently can also be traced to our own patterns of

migration and how we are have over -- how we have over the last 30 years in particular moved into communities of sameness as he puts it. a thesis that he happened on by virtue of his own experience of moving from lexington, kentucky, to austin, texas, and things that followed. of course, the book is replete with data that support that point of view ranging from in 1976 less than a quarter of the voting population lived in landslide counties in the presidential race, and by the time you get to 2000 it's roughly 50%. so i wonder if david and/or aaron or david and aaron could, a, talk a bit about the big sort thesis and whether you see it as holding its logic today and whether you see it as a sort of partner to the congressman's

notions about fixed redistricting or whether it is competitive or contrarian in some way by saying that, well, some of the damage that's being done is being done by the redistricting folks, a lot of it is being done by our own patterns of migration. >> i think you've hit on a vicious cycle in terms of migration patterns and then redistricting that leads towards polarization. and i've actually, you know, done some recent research on this cracker barrel, whole foods theory tying into bill bishop's work. but we have a couple of countervailing trends here. the suburbs, no doubt, have been diversifying. but racial and ethnic diversity is not the same as political diversity. and in those suburbs that are more ethnically diverse and getting more so, those suburbs are more heavily democratic than ever. but in suburbs and excerpts that are not diversifying, those

suburbs are more republican than or. and as urban america continues to be solidly democratic and most of rural america finds president obama to be, you know, counter to every value or life experience that they've known, we will, i think, be shocked in 2012 by the extent to which republicans are running up the score in rural america and the extent to which democrats are running up the score in urban america. and i think a lot of corporate marketers and political pollsters are thinking alike these days. corporate strategists are choosing to locate their stores in places where they know their concepts will work. then those kinds of stores, those kinds of values that certain companies bring act as magnets for certain types of

lifestyles, certain types of voters. and one thing that bill bishop remarked upon to me that i thought was an especially powerful theory was that politics these days doesn't really come down to policy, it comes down to lifestyle. and i think that's something we'll see very starkly in the 2012 election. >> i think he said it perfectly. i can't say it better than that, so i'll just leave it there. >> as one follow up, i think implicit in gary's question is many political scientists would doubt that redistricting has a huge effect. i think if i were to summarize the research, i would say it has somewhere between -- some think it has almost no effect, and some think it has a modest effect. and if there are other things going on, self-sorting, we've seen polarization in the senate, where do you put redistricting on the scale of things? where do you fall in this debate? are political scientists wrong? is it in the middle somewhere?

how significant a fact is it for polarization? >> i think that's a fair point. when you look at the split between urban and rural, the democrats are generally in more compact areas. if you drew the perfect good government map, whatever your concept of that is geographically, communities of interest, the democratic districts would still be a lot more democratic than the republican districts would be, and you'd still have more republican districts nationwide just because their districts tend to be a little bit more diluted. it's still republican leaning, but it's maybe a 55-45 or 60-40 situation whereas these urban districts are 70-30, 80-20 type districts. so it's not just the voting rights act, and it's not just, you know, partisan politics that are at work here. it's also the way that the population has moved around over the years. at the same time, i think that this is changing a little bit. we have seen more democrats moving to the suburbs, we have

seen the black population, for instance, migrating a little bit into the suburbs. so it's going to be something that's continuing to evolve, but i think another important aspect here is that we talk about the polarization of american politics, and we talk about how people are a kind of self-selecting their news, self-selecting, you know, things that agree with them. i wonder to some ec tent if people -- extent if people will start moving to areas where they feel more comfortable politically because we live in a society where people do seek out things that they agree with and not necessarily things that are different from them. >> if it happens to you, redistricting has a big impact. if it happens to somebody else, not much of an impact. [laughter] there's one over here. there's a lady over here too, john, on your left. >> first of all, the observation, the congressional district i live in has three whole foods and no cracker barrel restaurants, so i think i know which way it's going to

go -- >> which district is that, michael? >> the eighth congressional district of maryland. right. everyone agrees. i know the focus of this is on the house of representatives, and i understand that. next month state legislatures start coming into session. state legislatures have to be redistricted, and the republicans, of course, did a big pick-up in 2010. i know you can't get into the weeds with all 50 states, but on a general idea do you have any observations of what may be happening as the legislatures start convening next month and get into the redistricting of state legislatures? >> well, absolutely. i think we're seeing the same trend line at the congressional redistricting level that we're seeing at the state legislative redistricting level. and, you know, lost in the federal outcome of 2010, democrats losing six senate seats and 63 house seats on a net basis, democrats lost 680

state legislative seats. and to some extent, that was even more important because taking up that many legislative seats and governorships in the year prior to redistricting enabled them not only to redraw congressional maps in most states, but also to redraw state legislative maps that may endure for ten years. and so we may be talking about some self-perpetuation of republican-controlled legislatures in redistricting. and, you know, i think it's fascinating that democrats who used to, you know, really own congress for four decades while most of the time there were republican presidents, democrats now have a demographic coalition that's well suited for winning presidential elections in the future. they're growing among demographics that are growing in the electorate. younger voters, college-educated, minorities, we have been through it all. but in terms of redistricting,

it's republicans who have a self-perpetuating advantage. >> david talked about how this really, this is, you know, for ten years this is really going to make a big difference. i think it could even last longer than that, you know? if they draw such successful state legislative maps that they can pretty much guarantee they'll be in the majority ten years from now, they take the new census data, and they draw new maps again. so as long as they are in the majority next time, it perpetuates over and over again. i think the fact that we saw such a big turnover in a lot of these state legislatures right before a redistricting cycle is, you know, the effect of that should not be underestimated. it's not as if, you know, this happened four years ago. this happened right before the election. you've got these big, new republican majorities in a lot of states where control would generally be split, states like wisconsin and pennsylvania, and so this is their one chance to create something that, hopefully, they can hold for ten years, and if they still hold it

after ten years, they can do it again and hold another ten years. >> and i'll add that unlike at the federal level with the congressional districts where republicans holding power in states, they're essentially tapped out, they can't expand their delegations, there are a number of especially southern states which you could say have lagged behind at the local level which have now turned republican, mississippi, north carolina, places where the redistricting makes it seem highly likely they will be not only just barely republican, but strongly, strongly republican in the future. >> and where republicans didn't win the state legislatures in the south in 2010, there's been enough party switchers in a lot of those chambers to flip control of the chamber. so -- >> are can i ask the congressman briefly, how many democrats lost their seats in the texas house in 2010? statehouse? do you remember? >> i don't remember -- >> i think it was something like 25. >> yeah, it put hem in the minority.

>> so as democrats lost just three seats in the congressional delegation, losing over 20 in the texas statehouse and predominantly from rural areas -- >> it was about 25, but it was enough to turn the majority to the republican side. >> right. >> and one aspect of this, too, you know, that has been sensitive to me and i know to dan and that is the rural. the rural vote is fastly going the same way of the blue dog democrat in the congress, and there's nothing you can do about it, i mean, except you've got to spend a lot more time educating folks on what food and nutrition policy is all about. but it's happening. it's part of the state redistricting. >> john, this lady's had her hand up. >> we'll go here, and then we'll go -- >> thank you. my name is marie, i have a strayier mba from around the corner. am i not correct that steny hoyer's district at one point was changed, and yet he still got reelected? the next question i have then is, um, how does it look for my

congresswoman, donna edwards, to get reelected. and third, the comment is, does anyone want to comment on the color of your ties? [laughter] >> it was planned that way. it follows our logo, you know? the memo got received. [laughter] >> don't read into it too much. well, steny hoyer used to represent, i think, a greater portion of prince georges county, and as prince georges' complexion has changed, hoyer's district has been moved out a little further away from d.c. it's typically been over the years a seat that has been, you know, in the 30% range in terms of african-american population. right about the percentage that, you know, would be hospitable to electing steny hoyer in a primary and in a general election in that part of

maryland, and it's been kept that way in the democratic redistricting for the next decade. but i think what we might see is if congressman hoyer does decide to retire in the next decade, then -- i'm talking the next decade, don't worry -- that i think there's a possibility that that seat would be won by an african-american candidate because of the migration of so many african-americans to places like charles county. >> as far as, as far as donna edwards, i think she's been threatened with a primary before. she got into this seat by winning a primary against congressman wynn in '06, i think it was? >> '08. >> '08. but generally, these members will only lose a primary if they give their voters a good reason to send them out of office. congressman wynn did that. donna edwards may have irritated the maryland political establishment, the democratic establishment a little bit by talking about the redistricting

map, but i don't know that her sins are to the level of these members who have been kicked out of office in primaries. and she has great inroads with the progressive community in not just the black caucus, but in the progressive community broadly, you know, nationwide. so i think that they'll probably rally around her. >> curtis sands, right here. >> i'd like, first, to buttress a little bit on what the congressman said. secretary, congressman, chairman. [laughter] um, what the redistricting does is when you create a one-party district is make the relevant issue of election the primary. the average turnout for a statewide democratic primary is 10% of the electorate. the average turnout for a

statewide republican primary, and this is for governor and senator, is 8% of the electorate. that, you know, percentage is less for congress and even less for state legislatures. so what you are, what you are doing with this process is, essentially, empowering the organized extremes. you know, it would take a group representing no more than 4% of the electorate to, you know, win a primary and propel somebody into office. you know, which is to go back to, you know, congressman glickman's question, if we are going to try to do something about polarization in this country, you know, what can we do, you know, beyond the lessons that john's going to, you know, write about between now and ten years from now, you know, to mitigate, you know, this

polarization created, indeed, in part, you know, by the one-party districts? >> and curtis knows as he speaks given he is one of the foremost expert on voter turnout in this country, so i'm not going to quibble with his numbers about primary turnout, if i would ever quibble with anything he's saying. [laughter] >> well, i would point, again, to california as an example. a system where you may see similar levels of primary turnout in june, but the incentives will be entirely different than they have been in the past. and so, you know, i think we'll need a couple years to really tell if it's making much of a difference in terms of the political or yenation or the spectrum -- orr yen stationation or -- orientation of the spectrum of california's interpretation. if it does have an impact, i

think other states with ballot initiative processes, it could be held up as a model for reform. >> um, i think that, you know, we saw, i think it was the first race with that top two primary, the special election for, um, congresswoman harmon's seat, and we saw a situation where -- >> we are leaving this discussion at this point. you can see it in its entirety in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. we are going live now to the british house of commons for remarks from prime minister david cameron on the euro zone debt crisis. last thursday he attended the e.u. summit in brussels to meet with other european leaders on the crisis. he is back in london today where he'll address the house of commons and explain why he refused to back an e.u. treaty change aimed at solving the debt crisis. after a statement, the opposition leader will give remarks followed by questions from members. we join the house of commons as members are wrapping up other business.

>> and, indeed, i would notice that only two other member states of the european union actually have a rack contour. >> order. statement, the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission, mr. speaker, i would like to make a statement on last week's european council. [inaudible conversations] >> order. the house must calm itself. taking whatever medication required for the purpose and the prime minister's statement must and will be heard. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i went to brussels with one objective; to protect britain's national interests, and that is what i did. let me, let me refer back, let me refer back to what i said to this house last wednesday. i made it clear that if euro zone countries wanted a treaty involving all 27 members of the european union, we would incest

on some safe -- insist on some safeguards for britain to protect our own national interests. some thought that the safeguards i was asking for were relatively modest. nevertheless, satisfactory safeguards were not forthcoming, and so i did not agree to the treaty. mr. speaker, let me be clear about exactly what happened, what it means for britain, and what i see happening next. >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker -- >> order. i apologize for interrupting the prime minister. i hope members have now got it out of their system. [laughter] this statement will be heard. there will be ample opportunity for honorable and right honorable members on both sides of the house to question the prime minister, but courtesy and parliamentary convention dictate the statement will be heard. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. let me take the events of last week. at this council, the euro zone economies agreed there should be much tighter fiscal discipline in the euro zone as part of

restoring market confidence. mr. speaker, that is something britain recognizes is necessary in a single currency. we want the euro zone to sort out its problems. this is in britain's national interest because the crisis in the euro zone is having a chilling effect on britain's economy too. so the question of the council was not whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the euro zone, but rather, how that should be achieved. there were two possible outcomes. either a treaty of all 27 countries with proper safeguards for britain, or a separate treaty in which euro zone countries and others would pool their sovereignty on an intergovernmental basis with britain maintaining its position in the single market and in the european union of 27 members. we went seeking a deal at 27, and i responded to the german and french proposal for treaty change in good faith, genuinely looking to reach an agreement -- [inaudible conversations] at the level of the whole of the european union with the necessary safeguards for

britain. those safeguards on the single market and on financial services were modest, reasonable and relevant. we were not trying to create an unfair advantage for britain. london is the leading center for financial services in the world, and this sector employs 100,000 people in birmingham and a further 150,000 people in scotland. it supports the rest of the economy in britain and more widely in europe. we were not asking for a u.k. opt-out for special exemption or a generalized emergency break on financial services legislation. they were safeguards sought for the e.u. as a whole. we were simply asking for a level playing field, for open competition for financial services companies in all e.u. countries with arrangements that would enable every state to regulate its football sector properly -- financial sector properly. to those who are saying we were trying to go soft on the banks,

nothing can be further from the truth. we are going the respond positively to the tough measures set out in the vick car's report. there are issues about the current european regulations, so one of the things we wanted was to make sure we could go further than european rules on regulating the banks. the financial services report on rbs today demonstrates just how necessary that is, and perhaps honorable members opposite will remember their responsibility for the mess that they created. and those who say, and those who say that this proposed treaty change was all about safeguarding the eurozone and so britain shouldn't have tried to interfere or to insist on safeguards, i believe they are fundamentally wrong as well. the e.u. treaty is the treaty of those outside the euro as much as those inside the euro. creating a new eurozone treaty within the existing e.u. treaty

without proper safeguards would have changed the e.u. for us too. it's not just that it would have meant a whole new bureaucracy with rules and competencies for the eurozone countries, it would have changed the nature of the e.u., strengthening the eurozone without balancing measures to strengthen the single market. now, of course, an intergovernmental arrangement is not without risks, but we did not want to see that imbalance hard wired into the treaty without proper safeguards. and to those who believe this was not a real risk, france and germany said in their letter last week that the eurozone should work on single market issues like competitiveness. that is why we required safeguards, and i make no apology for it. of course, i wish those safeguards had been accepted, but frankly, i have to tell the house the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty, and the right answer was no treaty.

it was not an easy thing to do, but it was the right thing to do. as a result, eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements for the fiscal integration they need to solve the problems in the eurozone. they recognize this approach will be less attractive, more complex and more difficult to enforce, and they would prefer to incorporate the new treaty into the e.u. treaties in future. our position remains the same. let me turn to what this means for britain. mr. speaker, britain remains a full member of the european union, and can the events of the last week do nothing to change that. our membership of the e.u. is vital to our national interests. we are a trading nation, and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs. the e.u. makes britain a gateway to the largest single market in the world for investors, it secures half our exports and millions of british jobs, and membership of the e.u. strengthens our ability to progress foreign policy

objectives too, giving us a strong voice on the global stage on issues such as trade and as we have seen at durbin this week, climate change and the environment as well. so we are in the european union, and we want to be. this week there will be meetings on councils, on transport, telecommunications, energy, agriculture, fisheries, britain will be there as a full member of each one. but i believe in an e.u. with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc. we are not, we are not in no borders agreement and neither should we be was it is right we use our natural advantage as an island to protect us against illegal immigration, guns and drugs. we are not in a sickle currency, and we will never join. we are not in the new euro area bailout funds even though we had to negotiate our way out of it, and we are not in this year's

euro-plus pact. when the euro was created, the previous government agreed there would need to be separate meetings of eurozone ministers, and it is hardly surprising that those countries chose to join the existing eurozone members in developing future arrangements. those countries are going to be negotiating a treaty that parses unprecedented powers. some will have budgets effectively checked and rewritten by the european commission. none of this will happen in britain, but just as we wanted safeguards for britain's interests if we changed the e.u. treaty, so we will continue to be vigilant in protecting our national interests. an intergovernmental treaty, while it doesn't carry with it the same dangers for britain, nonetheless, it is not without risks. the decision of the new euro southbound joan-led arrangement is just beginning. we want the new treaty to work in stabilizing the euro and

putting it on a firm townation. and i understand why they want to use e.u. positions, but this is new territory and does raise important issues on which we will want to explore. so in the months to come, we will be vigorously engaged in the debate about how institutions built for 27 should continue to operate fairly for all member states, britain included. the u.k. is supportive of the role of the institutions not least because of the role they play in safeguarding the single market. so we will look constructively at any proposals with an open mind. but let us be clear about one thick. if britain had agreed treaty change without safeguards, there would be no discussion, britain would not have proper protection. finally, mr. speaker, let me turn to the next steps, the most pressing step of all is to fix the problems of the euro. as i've said, that involves far more than simply medium-term fiscal integration, important though that is. above all, the eurozone needs to

focus at the very least on implementing its october agreement. the markets want to be assured that the eurozone firewall is big enough, that europe's banks are being adequately recapitalized and that problems in countries like greece have been properly dealt with. there was some progress at the council, but far more needs to be done. the eurozone countries noted the possibility of additional imf assistance. our position on imf resources remains the one i set out at the cannes g20 summit. alongside non-european g20 countries, we are ready to look positively at strengthening the imf's capacity to help countries in difficulties across the world, but imf resources are for countries, not currencies and cannot be used specifically to support the euro, and we would not support that. there also needs to be greater competitiveness between the countries of the eurozone and, to be frank, the whole of europe needs to become more competitive. that is the way to for jobs and

growth -- to more jobs and growth. many countries have substantial trade deficits as well as budget deficits, and if they are not to be reliant on massive transfers of capital, they need to become more competitive and trade out of those deficits. the british agenda has always been about improving europe's competitiveness, and at recent councils we've achieved substantial progress on completing the single market and services, opening up our energy markets and exempting microbusinesses from future regulations. this has been done by working in partnership with a combination of countries that are in the eurozone, and i have cited. similarly, it was britain in partnership with france, germany and holland that successfully insisted on no real increases in resources for the first time in many, many years in the e.u.. on defense britain is an absolutely key european player with leading the nato rapid reaction force or tackling piracy in the -- >> order, i apologize for having

to interrupt the prime minister. it's actually the opposition's front bench that's making the most noise. it is not acceptable. the leader of the opposition will have an opportunity to reply, his colleagues must conduct themselves with a degree of reserve. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in our partnership with france was crucial in taking successful action in libya. britain will continue to form alliances on the things we want to get done. we've always had a leading role in advocating the policy of enlargement, and at this council we all celebrated the signing of croatia's accession treaty. mr. speaker, let me conclude with this point. i do not believe there is a fine choice for britain that we can actually sacrifice the national interests on issue after issue or lose our influence at the heart of european decision making process. i am absolutely clear it is possible to be both a full, committed and influential member

of the european union, but to stay out of arrangements where they do not protect our interests. that is what i have done at this council, that is what i will continue to do as long as i am prime minister. i commend this statement to the house. [cheers and applause] >> ed miliband. [cheers and applause] >> mr. speaker, can i start by thanking the prime minister for his statement, and we all note the absence of the deputy prime minister from his normal place. the reality is this; he has given up our seat at the table, he has exposed, not protected, british business, and he has come back with a bad deal for britain. [cheers and applause] now, the prime minister told us his first priority at the summit was sorting out the eurozone. but the euro crisis is not resolved. no promise by the european central bank to be lender of last resort, no plan for growth,

and little progress on bank recapitalization. so, mr. speaker, can he first tell us why his promise of action did not materialize and what this will mean for the british economy in the months ahead? now, of course, at the summit that was meant to solve these problems, he walked away from the table. let me turn to where that leafs britain. many people feared an outcome of 17 countries going it alone. few could have anticipated the diplomatic disaster of 26 going ahead and one country, britain, being left behind. now, the prime minister, now, the prime minister rests his whole case, now, the prime minister rests his whole case on the fact that 26 countries will not be able to use existing treaties or institutions. that is, apparently, the win that he got for this country. but can he confirm that article 273 of the european treaty allows them to use the european

court of justice, and no doubt they will end up using the commission's services and, yes, even the buildings, the point he made in the negotiations. and in case anyone had any doubt, it was confirmed yesterday by the absent deputy prime minister, because he said this: it clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the european union, to completely reinvent a whole panoply of existing institutions. and, mr. speaker, the prime minister won't even be setting the agenda for these meetings that start in january. he will read about decisions affecting british business in the pages of the financial times. now, next claim, mr. speaker. he claims he didn't want to sign p to the fiscal rules being imposed on euro-area countries, but can he confirm that no one even proposed that these would have applied to britain? next claim. he claims in a statement to have done what he did because this

treaty posed a grave threat to our financial services industry. i have to say over the whole course of the weekend he's been unable to point to a single proposal in the proposed treaty which would entail the alleged destruction of the city of london. can he now tell us when he comes back, what was the threat? in any case, there is nothing worse for protecting our interests in financial services than the outcome the prime minister ended up with. can he confirm there is not one extra protection that he has secured for technology financial services? the veto, the veto on financial services regulation, he didn't get it. the guarantees on the location of the european banking authority, he didn't get them. far from protecting our interests, he has left us without a voice. and, mr. speaker, the sensible members of his own party understand it as well as anyone. what did lord teffeltime -- oh,

oh, oh! how significant. what did lord say over the weekend? you can't protect the interests of the city by floating off into the middle of the atlantic. flash but it's no longer the conservative party of that time. it's going out on friday saying this is exactly what he'd always wanted. and what about the rest of british business, mr. speaker? the prime minister doesn't seem to have been thinking about it. the danger for them, too, is the discussions about the single market they rely on now take place without us. only this prime minister could call that leadership. now, of course, the deputy prime minister clearly doesn't agree. [inaudible conversations] he says this outcome leaves britain isolated and marginalized. does the prime minister agree with that assessment, mr. speaker? and i have to say, how can the

prime minister expect to persuade anybody else it's a good outcome when he can't persuade his own deputy? the prime minister, mr. speaker, claimed to have wheeled in a veto, but a veto, let me explain to him, is supposed to stop something from happening. it's not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. [laughter] mr. speaker, that's called losing. that's called being defeated. that's -- [cheers and applause] that's called letting britain down. [cheers and applause] no, mr. speaker, i haven't finished with him yet. [laughter] next, next, next, next i want to ask him, next -- >> order! order! order! i'm worried about the health of the honorable member from mid sussex. he must calm himself. have a lie down if necessary while we listen to the leader of

the opposition. >> next i want to ask him about how he ended up with this outcome. the proposal he tabled when he tabled them and his failure to even try and build alliances for them suggests someone who didn't exactly want a deal. can he confirm that what he actually proposed was to unpick the existing rules of lady thatcher's european act as regards the single market? and given that it was changing 25 years of the single market, why did he make these proposals in the final hours of the summit? and where were his allies, mr. speaker? if he wanted a teal can, why did he fail to build alliances with the swedes, the dutch, the poles and britain's traditional supporters? and if he really did want to protect the single market and financial services, why didn't he seek guarantees that these issues would only be discussed with all 27 members in the room? now, in any case, in any case, he shouldn't have walked away because the truth is, the truth

is -- just calm down, mr. speaker. the treaty will take months and months to negotiate. other countries, other countries have carried on, negotiated and carried on fighting for the national interest. the real answer is this: he didn't want to teal -- deal because he couldn't deliver it through his party. he responded to the biggest rebellion of his party in europe in a generation by making the biggest mistake of britain in europe for a generation. so, mr. speaker, this is a bad deal which we ended up with for bad reasons, and it will have long-lasting consequences. it is a decision which means we are in the sidelines, not just for one summit, but for the years ahead. the prime minister said in this house, mr. speaker, on the 24th of october that what mattered, and i quote, is not only access to the single market, but the need to insure we are sitting around the table.

[laughter] and he went on, that is key to our national interests, and we must not lose that. well, congratulations, prime minister, that is exactly what you have done. [cheers and applause] what no prime minister ever thought was wise, to leave the room to others, to abandon our seat at the table. the prime minister says he had no choice. he did. he could have stayed inside and fought his corner, he should have stayed inside and fought his corner. faced with a choice between the national interests and his party interest, he he has chosen the party interest. we will rue the day this prime minister left brick -- britain alone without allies, without business. it is bad for business, it is bad for jobs, it is bad for britain. [cheers and applause] >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of sound and fury, but one crucial weakness. he hasn't told us whether he

would sign up to the new treaty. [cheers and applause] he had about 15 minutes, and he can't tell us whether he's for it or whether he's against it. has it got enough safeguards in, or has it got too few safeguards? would a labour government back it, or would you veto it? let me tell him, if you can't decide, you can't lead. [cheers and applause] let me, let me try inasmuch as there were some specific questions, let me try and answer those questions. he asked what the threat was to financial services. why can't he understand that if you allow a new treaty of 17 members within the e.u. without proper safeguards, there are huge damages that can be done to the single market and to financial services. he asks, he asks what will

happen when this new organization goes ahead. of course, a new organization cannot do anything that cuts across the existing treaties or the existing legislation. so he doesn't even understand how the european union works. let me -- he asked what we gained from the veto. i'll tell you what we gained from the veto, we stopped britain from signing up to a treaty without any safeguards, that's what we gained. now, let me -- on the issue of the city and financial services, he completely fails to understand that this is a nationwide industry. it's not just the city of london, it's the whole of our country. and i have to say not a word, not a word about the report today showing that labour were to blame for the appalling regulation of -- [inaudible] [cheers and applause] and then, of course, and then, of course, and then, of course, we got the lecture -- >> order. members must calm down. i have my eye on one honorable gentleman from north england who

entered the house 32 years ago and should know better. the prime minister. >> and then, of course, we had the lecture in how to negotiate. i have to say, i'm not going to take any lessons from people who gave in time after time to the consensus rather than ever stand up for britain. just look at the record. they joined a bailout scheme even though it wasn't protecting a currency they were a member of. they gave up the rebate even though they got nothing in terms of reform of agriculture. they signed up to the lisbon treaty but never had the courage to put it to the british people. every time they just go along with what others want. he also talked about growth in jobs, and let me just say this, his plan alone in europe is to spend more, borrow more and increase debt by more. all the while if he wants to join, if he wants to join the euro, he needs to understand the treaty that is being established would actually make that illegal. the very thing he wants to do in britain, he wants to ban in

brussels. but the key question, the honorable gentleman cannot answer, is does he back this treaty or not? if answer is, yes, he should have the courage to say so. if the answer is, no, he should have the honesty to say that i was right to keep britain out of it. and let me just say this. because you're in opposition doesn't mean you should o pose britain's interests -- oppose britain's interests. [cheers and applause] >> order. sir peter sapsell. >> may i declare my admiration and whole hearted support for my right honorable friend at this definitive moment in his first premiership. and query whether this vas el summit achieved anything of strategic value to protect the threatened european banking

system, because without the long-delayed and still unpromised massive support of the european central bank and the -- [inaudible] bank, the euro is doomed. and, and -- yes, doomed. and as chancellor merkle has said, the european union with it. >> i certainly agree with my right honorable friend that in the balance of effort that has been given to new treaty powers and changes on the one hand and actually looking at what needs to be done particularly in the short term in terms of the firewall, bank recapitalization and action by the ecb, more needs to be focused on those things rather than on the medium-term power changes in the european union which i don't think are being hovered over by the markets who are working out whether these countries can pay

their debts. in that regard, i think the honorable gentleman is right. >> mr. jack straw. >> thank you, mr. speaker. there was no draft treaty before the european council last thursday and friday. there was a set of draft conclusions. would the prime minister set out the paragraph numbers to which he thought britain's interests would be damaged if we agree to them? would he also confirm, would he also confirm that we had a veto on financial transactions tax before last council, we still have one, that financial services regulation was subject to qmv before last thursday, and it's still subject to qmv? >> as i said in my statement, alongside the fact that the eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the e.u. which has all sorts of dangers, if you look as well at the letter that angela merkel

and nicolas sarkozy sent, it specifically said they wanted the 17 to look at issues like financial services and the market within that treaty. so without safeguards a treaty within a treaty would have been far metropolitan dangerous than a treaty outside the european union. and a treaty outside the european union cannot do anything that cuts across european treaties or european legislation. of course it's not without its dangers, but my judgment was without safeguards, a european treaty, an e.u. treaty was more dangerous. >> sir malcolm rivkin. >> leadership of the prime minister in brussels compares favorably with the leader of the opposition's refusal to indicate whether he would have supported -- [inaudible] the public will come to their own conclusions. may i ask, may i ask the prime minister whether he would agree that the term, et tu, europe, is inaccurate because it implies a

destination which all countries will reach exempt over a different period of time, whereas is it not the case that the united kingdom and, perhaps, other countries will never find it possible to accept a destination which involves not only a single currency, but also a fiscal union, tax harm -- harmonization, is it not necessary to have a real, fundamental debate about whether europe can become a europe a la carte in order or to survive? >> i think my right honorable friend makes an important point. it's not about the speed at which different organizations go at, it's the fact that europe already does have different facets. britain is not in the single currency, we are not in the no-borders agreement, and yet we are a leading member of the single market, and we pay a huge role in foreign and defense policy throughout europe and nato. so i think we shouldn't be embarrassed about that. we should do what's in our national interests than just to think the right thing to do is

sign up whether or not it suits us. .. >> time and again, time and again -- >> order. members must calm themselves. i am concerned for their, and i also feel the prime minister must be heard. the prime minister. >> there has been any number of examples of frankly discriminate

trade legislation against financial services in the european union. that has affected written a very badly. let me give one example. at the moment the ecb is taking britain to court on the basis that we shouldn't be able to clear euros through london so we been put in extraordinary position that banks in britain could clear swiss francs, could clear dollars, but even though when it's a single market we couldn't clear euros. that is one example of discriminatory legislation. when you're faced with a situation with 17 euros am members want to go into a further treaty within the european union and all the powers in force that has, they are not going within a tree within the european union. they're doing it outside. he is naïve to not understand that. >> may i congratulate my right honorable friend on his unequivocal statement, on his unequivocal statement that our membership of the european union, is vital to our national interest?

and expressed the hope that he may give it some wider currency among his own parties? the right honorable gentleman mentioned the single market in the euro zone. what steps can our government take now to assist the reaching of a solution to the problems of the eurozone and to what enhancing the opportunities provided by the single market, both of which are essential to the economic prosperity of this country? >> let me repeat again to the right honorable gentleman, that i do believe it's in britain's interest to be in the european union and to be active, particularly on those dossiers. chief amongst them is the single market. if you want to see what will make a difference with a single currency and the success of the eurozone, nothing matters more than competitiveness were britain should be very, very active with others, both those in the eurozone and those outside, to try for changes. we are fully committed to keeping up that work.

>> margaret hodge. >> any politician with experience doing business in europe knows that you never go to a key european meeting without having done extensive authoritarian work. so as you all country are premature of the outcome he would get your the prime minister didn't bother to do the work, and betrayed britain's long-term interest through sheer incompetence. all he made up his mind before to use the veto, because he was afraid of the backbenchers. which of those two was it? >> let me say to the right honorable lady, i went to brussels wanting a result at 27. but i had safeguards that i believe britain needed. and, frankly, you can have all the experience of nutrition in the world but if you're not prepared from time to time to say no, you don't have any influence or power.

>> john redwood. [shouting] >> would my right honorable friend agree with me that britain today has much more negotiating strength because they know they're dealing with a prime minister who will say no if he needs to? so when we have two prime ministers, it's a bad deal after bad deal, including giving our rebate a way for no good reason. [shouting] >> i'm grateful to my right honorable friend and it is the case there's too many occasions under the last government, britain was outnumbered but on things like the rebate it was given away for nothing in return simply because they wanted to go along with a cozy and comfortable consensus. sometimes it's necessary to say no and in my judgment we did not have the safeguards we needed so as a result it was right not to agree to this treaty. >> out of every european council meeting, there are perceptions

and realities. the prime minister did lose some of the realities. but could i put it to him, the perception around the world opposite europe and the united states is that we have committed the diplomatic catastrophe. the word isolated in britain is huge. and to come back from that, can he assure the house that in all future negotiations he would take within the deputy prime minister? [shouting] >> the honorable gentleman, like so many people that oppose what has happened, are exactly the same group of people who wanted us to join the single currency in the first place. they are never prepared to recognize that there are occasions when you need to safeguard your nations interest began to be able to say no. >> mr. peter lilley. >> would my right honorable friend agree that the best way to increase one's influence

within europe and, indeed, within a coalition government, is to set out once position and stick to it? >> question, i do find it surprising that before going to brussels that is exactly what is going to do, and what i would do if i couldn't get the safeguards, i did exactly what i said i was going to do. but apparently in politics these days that's very surprising. >> minister nick brown. [inaudible] >> i'm afraid i missed the beginning of his question. >> the right honorable gentleman wish to say it against the? [inaudible] financial services apply in the united kingdom? >> yes. >> mr. andrew tyrie. [inaudible] to protect the 1.3 million jobs?

[shouting] >> will the prime minister confirm that the currency you -- this proposal for bank regulation, so-called maximum harmonization could prevent us from implement the conclusions of the biggest commission to make our banks safer? spent my honorable friend is entirely right. one of the things we're concerned about is that we want to take the extra action of this country to make our banks safe, including what do you recommend. there is a danger in this is the current advice that the current european regulatory framework could stop us from doing that. that's exactly the sort of safeguard i think it's entirely reasonable. and as i said modest at relevant to ask for indies negotiations. we didn't get it and as a result i wasn't content to go ahead with the treaty. >> thank you mr. speedy. cannot on behalf of my right honorable friend commend the premise or for that -- [shouting] -- that he took of the council

indeed, welcome this morning by the first minister of northern ireland, and many in the community in northern ireland? the question is of course where did we go from here? because there is no qualified majority voting we can still be outvoted by perhaps a vindictive europe. can the prime minister not indicate to us what is next up is to change the fundamental nations to the relationship that we couldn't have towards one base of cooperation and free trade and away from ever closer political union? >> look, i'm very grateful to the audible jump in and the kind remarks he makes. i have long believed and still believe that the balance of powers between britain and europe isn't right and there are powers i would like to see return. what i've done as prime minister is specifically get the bail out our back to the first negotiation that i had to do on the esm treaty. on this negotiation we prevented a treat going ahead at the level of 27 because they were not adequate safeguards but i think

we'll see now frankly a period of great change in your. no one quite knows where this new organization outside the european treaties will go and what powers it will seek and how it will act. know what also knows exactly how the eurozone is going to development. my job is to protect and defend the national interest at all times and that is what i will continue to do. >> someone is not known -- [inaudible] the prime minister has my full support for what was an inevitable decision. the relationship between the physical contact of the 26 and the european union however remains uncertain. in particular the fiscal compact says the objective remains to incorporate these provisions into the trees of the union as soon as possible. would he agree in the light of that but the battle for britain's interests still has a long way to go? >> the point i would make is that the other e.u. countries

recognize that going ahead at less than 27 has its disadvantages. they don't have the power or authority of the european institutions fully behind them. and don't make some of the things they want to do more difficult. but nontheless, we have set out our position and we believe the safeguards are necessary and i won't change and have it changed my mind about that. let me make this .1 more time. the disadvantage for those countries that are going to be treaty outside the e.u. is it does mean that nothing can be done in the treaty that cuts across the e.u. treaties or the legislation adopted under them. i think that is an important safeguard given that we couldn't get the safeguard within the e.u. treaties. >> will accommodate the large number of back dangers as i always wish to do, what is required is brevity, a textbook example of which will be provided by mr. kris bryant. [laughter] spent example of irony there i think, mr. speaker. the single most important thing that our voters are saying for

months and weeks is there's a crisis going on in the economy across the whole of your. and that's depressing the economy in this country as well. they want to make sure they have jobs to go to next year. last week the prime minister surrendered an opportunity to do that the key surrender his seat and he surrendered to us back dangers. is in the ashamed? >> and it all started so well. he's right that there is a real crisis of jobs and opportunity across europe, and a lot of that is linked to the chilling effect of the eurozone crisis. some of the eurozone crisis needs to be resolved with better fiscal integration and you can argue about whether or not that really requires a treaty change that was being pushed for by france and germany. the real agenda to help the eurozone and help growth and jobs is actually by competitiveness and the single market and making sure even in the short term that is the big bazooka, the recapitalization of the banks, the proper program for greece, all things britain has been pushing for.

>> mr. william hague. >> on the protection for national literature, would my right honorable friend gently remind the deputy prime minister and the leader of the opposition that even, even 1971 paper confirms that you have to maintain the veto and use it in the national interest and to protect the fabric of the european union or lending committee as a whole. my right honorable friend's a depth the phrase has exerted all his influence to ensure that britain is protected. and willie also take it that europe itself will learn from his example? >> where i agree with my honorable friend come and i'm grateful for his support, is that it is important when you're looking at changing the institutions of the e.u., there must be unanimity. and the fee does come if you

feel your national interest are not being protected, and it's very important we maintain that in the e.u. >> sir stuart bell. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister talks to trading nation. he talked to invest and job. he talked of the importance of the eurozone. why doesn't he help greece and appellate? [inaudible] why isn't helping the european -- [inaudible] what specific measure can he announce today to help the euro, to help trade, to help investors and to help jobs? >> the right honorable jim has a long track record on these issues, but on issues of the greek bailout on the but i just don't support them. britain wasn't in the original bailout right at thing and we shouldn't be in subsequent greek bailout. i think frankly the last government made a mistake giving

us into the euro bailout mechanism. we got out of that. that does not mean britain is not a generous nation of the help its allies. we have led 5 million pounds to ireland to our economies are very integrated and i think the irish are doing some very difficult things to get the economy back on track, and we support them in the work they are doing. >> i appeal again for single, short, supplementary questions. mr. malcolm bruce. >> given we are facing the worst financial crisis in living memory, will the prime minister agree with me that the u.k. coalition government has a policy forging with it and i foolishly eurozone does not? what we now need shortly it to work in parallel to ensure that we have -- [inaudible] but deliver some pound to some euro? >> i am very grateful for the question. of course, i think it's important to recognize in a coalition government that both sides of the coalition cannot always achieve everything that they want to, but it's important that we were together. where we have agreed is the importance of a program of getting our economy back on

track. i think it's been a huge benefit and will continue to benefit our country that two parties have put their interests aside to work for the common good. >> mr. tony lloyd. >> mr. speaker, imac any reference to growth or any ambition our growth into the european economy. can the prime minister dispel the rumor by telling us what is supposed to be tabled around european gross? >> i'm afraid that i think is completely wrong. britain has been very consistent at tabling proposal after proposal for growth. so it is the british proposal to complete the single market. the british proposed a single market in services. it's the british proposal that has just been passed to exempt all micro businesses, those employing less than 10, from future european regulations. britain has the most pro-growth, pro-enterprise, pro-single party government and that's the way it's going to stay. >> mr. speaker, mac congratulate

my right honorable friend lex for speaking for very simple principle of fairness and european union, institutions of the 27th are there for the 27th. and i also remind him and the benches opposite and, indeed, the bpc, and he has the support not only of the conservative party but of the british people and what he does? spent i'm grateful for what my honorable friend said. i think the key to this issue about institutions is actually what this new organization does rather than necessarily the institutions do. the key as i said is to protect the single market and those things that are vital for britain. as they keep repeating the fact is an organization outside the e.u. treaties is not allowed to cut across or the legislation under those trees. it would get a greater danger if you allow a treaty of 17 to go ahead within the e.u., with all of the additional powers and bureaucracy and everything else,

and less of coaching to to safeguard i was seeking. >> having heard the prime minister gave his account, cant arrangements that be made for the deputy prime minister to explain to the house what he is very much oppose what has occurred in? >> negotiating approach of the government was agreed by the government before i went to brussels. it was very important to set down to agree to safeguard that we believe was necessary. i also said it out of the house, by the way, and that wasn't agree. but, of course, it's important to recognize it's no surprise to say that conservatives and democrats have not always agreed about european integration. but as i say we have both put aside our interest to work in a national interest in having a government that is able to clear up the mess that his party left. >> andrew rodding dale. >> mr. speaker, if there was

ever any doubt before, but i tell the prime minister there is none today in the minds of the british people that we are led by a prime minister with the courage to put our country's interest first. and i thank them for displaying the bulldog spirit in brussels last week. but will he -- [laughter] but really all so, will he also discussed the long-term future of europe with members of the european economic area, switzerland and turkey who have cashed in with the european union, to ensure that we're all working together in? >> my honorable friend support, the point i made i think last wednesday i will make again. of course, britain has key interest being in the european union and i don't believe that the sort of options that other countries have outside the european union give them anything like the inference that we have detected such as the markets we need open, it is the

rules of those markets and that is what the single market membership gives us in this country. >> is it not utterly bizarre that the prime minister had marginalized this country on the sidelines and recklessly thrown away britain's international insert from washington to beijing, solely to protect the city from regulation? when actually it is urgently in need of some regulation. and anyway, his veto cannot protect the banking sector from any future e.u. finance directors. and easy not, therefore, as shane that never before have so much been thrown away for so little? or indeed -- [inaudible] >> the right honorable gentleman clearly wrote his question before coming to the house. as i set out in a statement we were not seeking special protections for the city. we were seeking a level playing field. and, indeed, in some way we were asking to be able to have more

regulation in the u.k., not least because of the shambles of rbs. let us be clear. the report today only named three politicians. tony blair, the former prime minister, and the shadow chancellor. the man who was partly responsible for this complete shambles that we now have to clear up. [inaudible] whether or not this country's interests and to 80 the's interest were at greater risk of all of's event? looking forward, what policy reassurance can the prime minister give the potential for investors that we will remain at the heart of european economic decision-making? >> international investors has the advantage of being a member of the single market, but outside the euro zone and the euro. what i would say to the honorable gentleman is the greatest risk for britain would be to go into a treaty of which would include a new treaty of the 17 at the e.u. level but did

not safeguard our interest. of course, i would rather that our protocol had been accepted, that those protections and safeguards were put in place, they weren't. the greater danger would to go ahead with a treaty without those safeguards. [inaudible] >> why does he think he has failed his cases because the greater understanding of britain's interests in the european union, and support for backing of the single market and particularly amongst countries like holland and sweden and germany and the baltic state. we just achieved a breakthrough deal, something he never achieved in all the years in government of a freeze in the e.u. budget. britain did that by having allies and supporters in the european union who backed our moves. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister share my concern that members opposite just don't get it? they talk about the need to

create jobs in britain and yet they criticized the prime minister for looking after britain's financial services to provide 11% of our tax state, to mine jobs in this country and is our biggest net export? when are they going to understand that the prime minister was in standing up for british interest in? >> the honorable lady makes a good point which if you look at the financial services, and it goes way beyond the city of london. as i said in my statement, 100,000 people employed in birmingham, 7% of u.k. employment, one pound in every nine pounds collected in tax cut and 3% of our trade. it's usually important industry. there would be a threat if there was a treaty of the 17 in the european union without the proper safeguards and that is why i vetoed that approach. >> mr. dennis skinner spent isn't this the same prime minister who month after month has been -- working people for not staying and meeting the

deal? [laughter] so he walked out without using his veto, he has walked out without getting a rebate like mrs. thatcher did. he walked out without -- like major. what a clunker. [laughter] >> i did absolutely -- [shouting] i can actually assure the honorable gentleman i did not at any stage walkout of the meeting. but i did at that meeting was depressed britain's interests as a british prime ministers should. >> dr. julian lewis. >> how the prime minister has cast his vote on europe so effectively in brussels, does he think there's any chance that the british people might one day have an opportunity to do something similar over here in? >> i wondered how long it would take to get to that issue.

[laughter] i have to say to me the most important use of a reference is if there's a proposal for this house of commons or any government to pass powers from the south to somewhere else. we should ask the british people first. that to me in a parliamentary area is the right use. as we are not signed a treaty i think whole issue of a referendum doesn't arise. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister believe if baroness thatcher and john major had followed his negotiating tactics we would have got the single european act -- [inaudible] >> the point is about the single european act it was in britain's interest and that's why margaret thatcher sunday. the tree was only in britain's interest. you could get an opt out on the single european country and

that's what currency and that is what john major achieve. i couldn't get a treaty with safeguards so i was right to say no to it. >> mark pritchard. >> may i congratulate the prime minister on his leadership? and putting the british national interest first i'd like 13 years party opposite? but as my right honorable friend seen the opinion poll today shows few support in the country for his actions. unanimous support of the benches, and most revealing and interestingly, the support of 49% of liberal democrats voters rex. >> i'm very grateful to my honorable friend for his support. the key issue for me was not an issue about whether this was going to be popular today, tomorrow or next week, but what is the right thing or britain. and i judge that a treaty without safeguards wasn't right for britain. and i have to say, for all of the interruptions for opposite,

and kill the answer the question, would you sign this treaty -- [shouting] until they can answer that question i think a little bit of silence is needed. >> caroline newkirk. >> given -- [inaudible] can the prime minister tell us why he is behaving that the interests of the 50 was synonymous with the national interest. they clearly are not. >> i'm not sure the honorable lady was listing. that are some ways in which we want to actually regulate tank and financial institutions more but are not able to because of the european union rules. the other issues i was looking at, some of them were specifically about discrimination where it is quite wrong as a member of the single market we are not able to do in euros in the same way we are in dollars and yen. it's a very straightforward said of undertakings. it wasn't about special

protection from the city. i hope i got across that in my state i hope the honorable lady will support us when we reached these regulations. >> it's impossible for me to -- [inaudible] [shouting] i wonder, does the right honorable member share my concerns that the next cowardly and negative attack over the weekend -- [inaudible] but, unfortunately, came from the democrats. cowardice only by the absence of the deputy prime minister today. >> i'm afraid i don't agree with my honorable friend, much as i -- i'm grateful for support but we do have to recognize we are in a coalition and in a coalition, parties can achieve all the things that they want to achieve and i think we have to praise each other in the coalition wouldn't make sacrifices on the half of the country.

the liberal democrats did agree to the negotiate strategy that we pursued and i can be very clear that i came to this house, i said what i was going to do, i didn't get what i said i was going to do. because i couldn't achieve the safeguards i wanted. a very straightforward way to act, and i hope that everyone on this side of the house will support me. >> at what stage of the negotiation to the prime minister realize that france, germany do their best with not to try? a christmas cheer, could he, could he give us an undiplomatic reply? [laughter] spent my honorable friend, the honorable gentleman -- sorry, sorry, we often agree that we do have -- it was obviously a developing situation but i had a meeting with sarkozy before the council began. i had been to see the german chancellor three weeks before the council but i have been to see the french president a week before the council. and i think there was, there was

good prospect of making an agreement. conversations were also held with a huge number of finance ministers and other government leaders. clearview 27 would rather have a deal of the 27. they see the problems and difficulties of what they are proposing. but in the end they were not willing to give the safeguards. and as a result i think i did the right thing. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the prime minister will want to know that the toast of the people in somerset was to the pilot who weathered the storm, because he stood up to democracy, he has stood up for free markets. and he's to be wonderfully commended. [shouting] >> and i think my honorable friend for his such full voiced support? >> mr. speaker, he says he went to europe seeking a treaty.

has he got that treaty he would have had to have held a referendum. if that's the case, if that's the case, can the prime minister confirm that success in his eyes would've been a referendum? and if so, why doesn't he hold one? >> with huge respected audibly i think she is wrong on both counts but i did not go to brussels seeking a treaty change. the point was that if a treaty change was put forward their needed to be safeguards for britain at that is the first point. the second point, i did not go thinking that he treaty change would necessarily lead to a referendum because i was not willing to sign up to a treaty change to pass power from print to brussels. so those parts of the question are inactivate i didn't go either what could possibly list of events because of pressure or anything else but i went to brussels with a set of proposals that were modest, reasonable and relevant. >> mr. nicholas stone. >> can the right honorable

friend usher businesses, some of them are understandably anxious about the consequences of what may flow this weekend? but with united kingdom seek is an adaptable flexible and competitive the e.u. and that we will continue playing a full and creative role in europe as one of fortifying out important substantial relations bilateral relations elsewhere? >> i agree wholeheartedly with what my right honorable friend says and i will reassure those businesses, the key thing is the single market which is fully protected by the european commission, the european court of justice and all the institutions of the e.u. that it is unchanged. we are full membership. we have those trees and other organization. and because of the e.u. mayors are going for treaty outside the e.u., that protection will remain. and i would say to those businesses not only do we maintain a single market but will also keep up the pressure to something else they need

which is a more fundamental solution to the crisis affecting the eurozone. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. the uk's 19,000 square miles in area, prime minister seems to think of only one square mile in of importance. can i put to him that his colleague, his colleague, the self-styled pragmatic revolutionary, the deputy prime minister on thursday and friday was heavily supportive of the prime minister? yesterday, condemning the prime minister. does that translate any idea which way he is thinking of? >> on the issue of financial services this is not just one square mile of the 19 to. i think of people working in the financial services industries in carnage to africa banks, buildings, insurance business is right across wales. they need to know that there is fair regulation within the e.u. and they want those safeguards, to. it's not just those industries

on their own. it's the support they give to other industries as well. >> mr. speaker, can i -- [inaudible] more importantly with the country? can he confirm foreign secretary suggested existing treaties of european union belong to all 27 member states and that there can be no question of eurozone countries have been reported institutions mechanisms and procedures of those treaties? >> i think what my honorable friend says is important. the treaties he belonged equally to those who are in the euro, those who are out of the euro. and the key thing about this is that if there are going to be further changes to those trees come if you're going to allow the eurozone members to do something within the architecture of the european union, it is important to get safeguards for those countries that are not in the euro, not going to join, want to safeguard the single market, recognize

there's a potential threat to financial services. that is what we were about in brussels and that is what matters spent once again i appeal to members to help each other by being briefed. >> given the current economic crisis in europe, does the prime minister believed that the europe of 2020 strategy still has a future as a successor to the lisbon benchmarks? and is he confident that we can achieve the shared goals? >> the short answer is the 2020 strategy needs to have a future and i think we do need to encourage european union countries to spend more time focusing on what really drives growth, which is completing the single market rather than some of these initiatives which are about medium-term fiscal austerity and big transfers of sovereignty. i know they are important, particularly important to some in the e.u., but real growth will be driven to the single market. >> may i remind the prime minister again that these benches and the vast majority of the british people support what

he did last week? and our favorite glad it was this party leader and his party leader of who was be up for britain in the summer? i wonder if the prime minister would agree with one of his predecessors when she said europe is at its strongest when it grows through willing cooperation and practical measures, not compulsion or bureaucratic dreams. [shouting] spent i'm very grateful for my honorable friend support. the point i made in my statement about europe being a network not a blog i think is completely consistent with that. we shouldn't be shy about developing as a network. subnetworks we want to be in than others we don't want to be in. >> greg dobson. >> will the prime minister confirm that british banks and finance houses hold about 75 billion pounds worth of bonds issued by eurozone government's? what he confirm that in the event of a default with nobody

representing britain, he was to be expected to get the british taxpayers to bail some of them out? >> well, the exposure of the british banks to european countries is published by the bank of england, and quite right. and we want to avoid a collapse of the eurozone and we want to make sure the eurozone takes the steps that are necessary to prevent that from happening. this government will do whatever is necessary to safeguard our financial system and the econo economy. >> against the odds on climate change with the u.k. playing a leading role alongside our e.u. counterparts, with the prime minister reflect whether that kind of constructive and positive diplomacy may be a better approach for interest than rushing for the exits? >> shop-vac. >> i -- [shouting] i certainly agree it is a worthwhile one. it is a staging post towards

another globe to and that is very worthwhile bit but am afraid i don't see any contradictions between being anti-deposit and constructive but also having, having a bottom line. when you have a bottom line is quite important you stick to it. >> over the years to come as a result of his decisions, economic and financial power will inevitably drain away from london to frankfort. and how is that any interest of british manufacturing or british financial services? >> this is exactly the article is made about the euro. i remember it very well, people said if you don't join the euro, frank for will be the major financial center of europe and not britain but, frankly, it was scaremongering thing and it is scaremongering now. from the same people. [shouting] [inaudible] which i'm sure we widely support across the country. does my. testimony right honorable friend remember words of former prime

minister tony blair, aye, if we are isolated and we are right, then that's a great position to be and it wouldn't be a great? >> yes. >> is this the first case in recorded history of a proud premiership team relegating itself, relegating itself to a second division, cheered on by the new english tea party? >> again, this is the same argument we had at the time of the debate about whether britain should join the euro. it's largely the same people making it who are in favor of that, who felt that if he didn't join the euro, then you were relegating yourself to the second division. frankly, i'm glad britain is out of the euro. [shouting] we are able to make decisions for the benefit of our own economy here in britain. we are better off because of it. the same argument from the same people. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. >> mr. speaker, can i tell the

prime minister there should be noted that he did the right thing last week? but can he confirm that if you will not make any further policy concessions -- [inaudible] >> always grateful for my honorable friend support, but he makes all a bit too far back as i said, the coalition is right for britain. i want to caution to be working for the good of britain and went to recognize that sometimes mean we can't get the things that we want. >> can the prime minister explain to me, specifically, what safeguards are in place today for the city of london in british interests them that were not in place last week's? >> clearly, if we been able to achieve the protocol of financial services there would've been greater safeguards. but the safeguard we do have is we are not signing up with a treaty that could put that industry in danger. >> congratulate mr. speaker, my

right honorable friend on his bold and courageous stance in the early hours of the mourning last friday. and i'd like to pass on the thanks of many of my constituents. can he confirm that -- did sign up to an agreement, bulgaria, poland, denmark, sweden, latvia, lithuania and others such as hungry, still need to improve and ratify? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very good point, which is we do not yet exactly know how this new organization, how this new treaty will develop, how many countries will sign up to. is also going to be a huge process, particularly as it involves very detailed scrutiny and punishment from the european commission if governments draw up inappropriate budgets, or if they have a structural deficit greater than 4.5 presented what was a, seven, 8% structural

deficit to this big process to go through before either this treaty is finalized in march, or indeed implemented where it again it would have to put department and possibly even to referendum as well. as many hoops to go through. >> i'm not going to criticize the primacy for using us to. [inaudible] but surely he would have done better to use the big bazooka later for consequences of sarkozy become clear to care because at that stage would have lots of allies but you should have now. spent the honorable gentleman makes interesting argument but i think there are big questions for the countries are signing this to answer. obviously, i think in a single currency have to have that sort of fiscal coordination but that's probably why he and i agreed on one of the many reasons you shouldn't join a

single currency. but my job at the european council is to stand up for britain's interests and that's what i did. >> in welcoming the steps taken by the prime minister, given that the other members of the european union refused to agree to even the very modest proposals he put forward, what chance does my right honorable friend think that the is an event occurring this country to regain control over such matters as those covered by -- [inaudible] >> i am grateful to my honorable friends question but i'm not as pessimistic as him that there is no prospect for be balancing powers within the european union. i think there are possibilities and opportunities. we did that in terms of the bailout fund and i think there will be opportunities in the future. >> the coordination of european union policy is very clear. it requires the u.k. government to engage with all governments

in the formulation of u.k. policy. that's clearly didn't happen investigation. so how will the prime minister now explained to belfast and others that adopting an isolationist policy is anything other than damaging and dangerous? >> i don't accept that. in the final analysis it is a reserved issue for the u.k. parliament, the u.k. government, our relations with european union. but to be fair to this government it's gone further than any previous government on issues that really matter to people in scotland about the single market, about fisheries, about decisions taken within european union to work very constructively with the other administrations. >> as the prime minister agree with me that britain's influence in the world is dependent on our economic strength our productivity and our competitiveness and we should not trade away these valuable assets of? >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point. every country in europe is

challenge in terms of its economy. i think it's very important to make sure we're safeguarding britain's interests, things in the market, seeking extra safeguards for things like finance and other industry in making sure we can grow out of this crisis. >> the prime minister must know that right across the u.k. the majority of the public and, indeed, there i say, the majority of voters also support with the primers are has done? however, however -- [shouting] the prime minister knows that's the reality. could ask him what he not agree that not what the public wants is instead of as being isolated in europe that we should be looking to be much more international and less little your pianist? >> i have great sympathy for what the honorable lady says but i think what of course is both action within europe on issues that matter to us like a single market but also recognizing we should be refreshing and restoring, whether it is the

gulf, the commonwealth, whether it is a fast-growing countries of southeast asia. this government is committed to doing all of those things. >> sir robert smith. >> mr. speaker, both in aberdeen in the northeast of scotland and in norway, a considerable concern that vast regulations on offshore drilling for oil and gas threaten the gold safety standard achieved in the north sea. what happened last that make it easier or more difficult to get the qualified minority necessary to make sure those regulations are withdrawn and -- [inaudible] >> i don't think what happened last week will have any impact on that decision, because these are issues that are dealt with properly in the single markets and an organization set up outside the e.u. cannot cut across existing treaties or existing legislation. we should work very hard to make sure we get a good deal for the north sea. >> mr. speaker, those great former politicians both said

that the single currency would fail, and they have been proved absolutely right. with the prime minister not accept that the choice in reality is between the controls the deconstruction of the euro or an uncontrolled crash? would he make his point to his european colleagues? >> well, what i would say to the honorable gentleman is come i'm afraid i told you so isn't economic policy. i have every sympathy what he says. i've never supported britain joined the year because single currency implies a single economic policy, a single fiscal policy, and try to run those things across different democracy is so incredibly difficult but if you ask them what is britain's interest to do it is for the euro zone to sort out its problems, a breakup of the euro zone are very severe consequences for banks across europe and also for banks here in britain and could trigger some very, very difficult economic times. so in spite of what he says i think we should be working

constructively to encourage you his own country to do what is necessary, particularly in the short term, this table is what is a difficult situation. >> warmly congratulate the prime minister on standing up for british interests last week, and for refusing to take the approach of the party opposite who signed onto 7 billion pounds a bridge rebate with in return. >> can i thank my honorable friend for his support. what we don't know of course that is what their approaches to this issue because despite all that getting rid heard on the benches opposite they can't tell us whether they support this treaty proposal or not. [inaudible] subject debut single market regulation, though we now have a major problem that we will be absent when many of those rules are drawn up. >> that is not the case because the new organization cannot draw up proposals of past opposed to cut across e.u. treaties or e.u. legislation. the honorable gentleman, right honorable gentleman knows this

will. it is the case that britain has suffered from some of the regulations that have come out of brussels on financial services and is the case that we need greater safeguards. you can't get the safeguards within a treaty. it's better that those countries are in a separate tree. that is a better safeguard than the alternative. that's the point he needs to understand. >> the leader of the opposition fighting is you should never leave pashtun is surely -- [inaudible] does by right honorable friend agree -- [shouting] there's been, there's been an empty seat at the table as if we didn't join the euro. does by right honorable friend agree that somebody who is never prepared disagree with our european friends even when it's in british interests? [shouting] >> i'm grateful for my honorable friend support. appointee makes about the creation of a yielding quite, quite a fundamental moment that created these tensions injured is entirely right.

it was the position of the last government that they wanted to get us into the euro. they realize that wasn't possible. spent i think it still is the policy. that's the thing that changed the relationship in your. but even they decide that it was okay for your zone countries to meet on their own. that is not being isolated. that is recognizing our reality that britain doesn't want to be in the euro and, therefore, you can't stop that meeting going ahead. >> kevin baron spent it was not about joining the euro and. but it was about protecting the interest of the euro currency. so that we would protect the national economy but i also think the primers to sit on several occasions this afternoon and a total occasions over the past few weeks, why has he walked away from responsible position and about our economy to potentially get attacked if it's not success of the of for the interest of the euro? we did it with ireland. why are not looking around and taking action for the why to protect the interest of this

country? >> first of all what we did with ireland is a very close neighbor and long-standing friend and their integrated economy as we get in a bilateral -- i think that was the right thing to do but i don't think that what the proposal that they put forward on thursday night, friday morning, i don't believe that that's the most important part of delivering a successful euro. we need to spend more time on the single market, on competitiveness and on the short-term measures to stabilize the euro zone. i simply don't believe that actually whether or not a treaty is within the you eat or without the e.u. is going to make huge difference for the future of the euro. >> order. short single questions would enable me to get in everyone who is still standing. i ask members to help me to help them. mr. peter bowen. >> mr. speaker, i received an important message to pass on to the prime minister.

on thursday the efforts of the primers on thursday night gave me great pleasure. yours ever, mrs. bowen. [laughter] as ever i'm grateful for her support. [laughter] >> mr. wade davis. >> ask the prime minister it is correct the debt be prime ministers said that he is not sure because he didn't want to be a destruction -- distraction? >> the debt the prime minister and i agree to the negotiating strategy for the european council, and that is important as the whole government that was doing it as our council. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister was negotiating as the premise of the coalition government. does he agree with me that now is not the time to listen to those who say we should leave the e.u., nor listen to those who say we should push into political and fiscal union? can he tell the british people that he will stick to the coalition policy and get the

economy back on its feet? >> i'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman for what he says and i can confirm that is the case. the coalition is united in wanting to have growth policies across europe in promoting physical market in a very active way, and i can guarantee we will continue to do that. >> mr. speaker, the deputy prime minister had the opportunity to visit my constituents last week and arrived late at the european some. how many of the lives of the 26th e.u. member states to the prime minister speak to in a fortnight ahead of the summit? >> first of all, i did go there because i don't believe in the normal chicken theory that prime minister stay away from violation. [shouting] we spoke to a wide audience of dhl employees who live in the constituency and encourage them to -- [inaudible] that's the first thing. the second thing after that i

popped into my sons nativity play which was also a rare joy. after that i got to the european council sometime before it started, met with italian prime minister, the french president and the german prime minister. in addition to that i had a whole series of telephone calls with the dutch prime minister, the swedish prime minister, and many others. i'm sure the honorable lady understands it. it's called multitasking. >> he had no option but to veto. may i ask him whether he agreed that the euro sovereign debt crisis is still there, still the most important threat to us all? whitney agreed that that's what are your zone out to be concentrating on? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very good point. i quite understand why particularly the germans want to see this fiscal union and want to see tougher rules, because they don't want to see a responsibly behavior repeat itself. whether this actually requires

changes the tree or not one candidate. but i do think we are to spend more time on the other parts of solving the crisis which are to do with short-term changes and longer-term competitiveness. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is aware this is one of the most fundamental changes in our own national politics and in european politics. can he assure the house that he has been mindful in all negotiations that he is having in the future, he would look after not just a natural services by the manufacturing service, and other service industries that don't have a part to play in the city of london? >> i completely agree with what the honorable, right honorable gentleman says. i don't see the financial service just on their own. they have a role in supporting the rest of the economy but, frankly, the key in terms of europe and the rest of the come is the single market that is what we are determined to see it on. >> the u.k. -- [inaudible]

net contribution into the e.u. in 2010-11. with the second largest but perhaps we can become a bit more like the unions and demand a bit more influence for our money. [laughter] spent the honorable gentleman makes a good point which is if we are a major player in the european union, not least because we are the second largest net configure and that does give us a huge amount of influence and what we've got to safeguard the european union and its treaties not allowing those to be changed if we were not able to get the safeguards we needed. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister know the whereabouts of the deputy prime minister? with their kids lead to divorce? >> no. >> mr. david rightly. >> i'd like to pass on best wishes and kisses for very grateful for the prime minister's work last week and the previous government in 2005

the burden of e.u. regulation cost businesses billions of pounds each year. cannot right honorable friend tell the house what steps he is taking to reduce the burden of e.u. regulation rather than increasing? >> well, i'm grateful for that question. we are working extra hard, particularly in the area of us in the market to encourage the commission who are actually now looking at reducing the burden of regulation that the past and specifically the burden of regulation on businesses that employ less than 10 people. we it's a good for the first time the idea of a moratorium. there will not be more regulations on them in the coming years. >> can i remind the prime minister that it isn't just -- [inaudible] there are millions of jobs up and down this country come constituencies like mine that rely directly on the e.u. now that we're no longer at the table who's going to stand up for those jobs? >> first of all i would say to the honorable lady, the rbs report reminds us of the

terrible effect on the rest of the economy when the banking system goes wrong when it is not regulate probably. so there isn't an important connection to the second thing is other businesses require us to safeguard the single market and that is exactly what i did. >> given we are the second largest contributor to europe with the prime minister agree with me that without our contribution europe would actually fail? >> it does mean that we have a huge amount of influence in the e.u. and that we do drive practically every single market policy but, of course, he makes a point we have to make sure we're getting value for money and that's what i am so key we have managed a freeze in the e.u. budget this year. [inaudible] can he reassure us that the unfair by this decision will not impact upon will jobs and the real economy of the united kingdom? >> i conservative in that ushers

because i think we can say to international investors, to businesses looking at britain, we have all the advantage of the single market, access to europe's markets. but we are not in the euro zone, we are affected by what happened in the your zone but our interest rates are just over 2% whereas countries into your zone with budget deficits like are set interest rates more like five, six, 7%. >> mr. speaker, is my right honorable friend aware of the words of chancellor merkel this morning. ..