but again, even there when we think about how we get from september 12th to december 14th, you know, the talk is normally about what this how quickly are you going to tip over and take the forces out. i would rather have dr. the discussion about what do you want us to do, what we need to do and is there a different way to do it again what we might describe as the starbucks approach to want a tall, grande and venti? if you give me this much for civil war or increase the risk if you give me this much will tell you this is unacceptable. small, medium or large. maybe there are opportunities out there to do it different and have a force that is organized differently. i'm not there yet but i will tell you that is exactly where we need to go. speed the general in the second row, please. >> the last two questions.

you also had a question. let's get these two questions and then general dempsey can answer them. >> i and former minister of defense and i am with the atlantic council. general, the general recognized the relationships within the alliance have a sound foundation which have helped them live through political change in europe and as you said, the crisis is a fundamental problem which also affects the political relationships. what would you say to those in europe and in the united states who feel concerned about the future and the levels of funding, because we all know that without that there is no common denominator. >> before we ask that. >> i am the defense minister from the midlands. my question relates to nato and we touch upon the british

already. to speak to secretary gates in june to basically address that very robust. we have a nato summit coming up next year which will be in your opinion the outcome of the summit? >> those questions are related aren't they? first, as i mentioned, you are hearing is the rebalancing of the assessment of the strategic risk and even my european colleagues when i engage them agree that the strategic risk is migrating to the pacific to reverse of the strategic risk is like reading and we have to decide what we are going to do about that. but i also say and i hope you heard it whenever we are going to do we will build on a strong foundation of our traditional allies. if the united states goes to war tomorrow or five years from now, who are we going to call first? we are going to call our traditional nato allies. and so, you know, we are not going to walk away from nato.

we might very well change our presence in europe. we might as well change our presence in the pacific and elsewhere. some of his career that permanent presence, some of this rotational could become permanent. we just haven't gotten there yet. but what i can assure you is this isn't a strategic pivot where we turn from facing one direction to another. that isn't the way that the will is. as far as the summit, we are working and will work with the ministerial and the lottery consultant meetings to fraiman that question. i think prominently will be the future, it has to become the future of afghanistan, the recommitment to the lisbon objectives. mabey fresh thinking about how we get there. and in fact, as i have been traveling around in the discussions with my -- with our closest allies what i have asked our european partners is let's

not get ahead of ourselves. let's not announce in december that we are going to do something in 2013 before the nato summit. let's work toward the summit and have that be a significant moment for all of us that would be my aspiration for the nato summit. >> so, general, i want to thank you as i mentioned at the beginning you have a commitment at the white house and as much as we would like to hold on to you we know we can't. we have to think out loud about the issues we will be facing as chairman. i do have to ask you three times by the count in the last few weeks, and i want to ask you whether that is true. and if it's true, i want to ask you to prove that. >> first of all this christmas

in kill karni and new brunswick. second if i can ask you all to turn off your cameras down there i will serenade myself of the door. i see the red light. if i see the red light it isn't happening, sorry. >> the camera is out. they have to cooperate. >> i'm the chairman. turn them off or we will find a way to do it remotely. [laughter] >> there's still the two red lights back there. >> imet def after but i'm not blind. [laughter] >> this one over here still has his red light. >> i can't either. [laughter] >> sorry. i'm not showing up on youtube again. [laughter]

>> real quickly triet christmas is wonderful to see listen to my story and i will take you back with me to the hall the green, the ivy green, the prettiest picture you've ever seen, it's christmas with all of the folks at home. how nice you know to kiss your both right under the mistletoe and santa claus you know one of the boys from home. the door is always open, the neighbors pay a call. father john before he is gone will bless the house and all. how branded fuels to click your heels i'm telling you know blarney the likes you've never known it is christmas in killarney with all of the folks at home. ♪ [applause] [laughter]

>> see you next time. thanks very much.

>> british prime minister david cameron spoke monday in the house of commons about the recent e.u. summit on the year rose own debt crisis. explaining why he refused to back the treaty into solving the crisis. stat is about two hours. one. thank was to make the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker.like a >> with permission, mr. speakero i would like to begin statements on last week's european council. >> order. the house must call itselfpose taking what is required for the purpose of the statement mustim and will be heard. bssels

the prime minister. >> mr. speaker, i went too prott brussels with one objective tona protect britain's b5 national interest and that is what i did. let me refer back to what i sai to the house last wednesday. i made it clear that if the eurozone countries wanted the treaty involving all 27 members of the european union, we woulds 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, nd i quote, is notnly accs .. 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. .. she takes the future what is that there was a margaret thatcher in iran needed. and why does he think it's helpful to after the nine other members of the european union not and they are into franco german hands. >> for all the rydal geminis experience, i think he's very naïve about what is happening in europe with the financial

services. there is time and again -- timed and again -- s >> order. aembers mu.st call themtheir, themselves. i am concerned for them and they asked a few of the primenis minister must be very. >> 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. sr ..pethe 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. ..

those countries alike minded are single issues like germany, like sweden, they wanted britain to be there discussing the single e anotasonssues which is another reason why a separate a organizations i don't believey e will cut across producing oil market. >> jus >> for the sake of currency can can th pe minister tell the house where is the deputy primey minister isn't he here for this extremely important statement? >> the deputy prime minister

agreed to the negotiating strategy. i'm not responsible for his whereabouts. i'm sure he's working extremely hard. >> mr. john baron. >> the prime minister's veto -- the prime minister's veto has rightly struck a chord with the nation. may i suggest that instead of being the end of the affair, it should be the start of a process to recalibrate our relationship with the e.u. based on free trade and growth and not on fiscal unity and free regulation which has cost this money so much. >> i am grateful for my right honorable friend's support. we want to get the best out of europe for britain and that means they focus, yes, on the single market but that is not purely a focus on trade. it's recognizing that that market is not just open for our goods, but we have a say in setting the louisiana that is absolutely key, i think, to our national interest. >> what will the prime minister say to those leaders of the manufacturing sector who believe

that his actions have deeply undermined their interest like, the director of the u.k. said today we are going to become less relevant decision-making. >> here, here. >> well, i don't agree with that. i believe there was a lot of arguments made when britain joined the euro and there were a lot of media leaders and parties who said if you say out of the euro you will marginalize the economy. i think they were wrong then and i think they're wrong now. >> the analysis is focused on the use of the veto. can the prime minister confirm of the details of fiscal union proposed by theiest rest of the european union would render the entire opposition party's economic policy illegal? >> it's very good point because we know that the leader of the labour party is committed to joining the euro. if he's prime minister for long

enough and we haven't heard if he's for it or against it. if he joins this party, it's made his own party legal. he would be fined for the european commission for the parties that the shadow chancellor who isn't here now is -- >> mr. speaker. >> without exception, i hope, to hear mr. graham stringer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. euro wouldn't be the economic and political mess now if we had to wait for nearly 40 years before a british prime minister came back and said that he or she had used the veto. can the prime minister tell us how he's going to -- and when he's going to repatriotiat some of those powers that have been so carelessly given way. >> we have brought back the bailout. we've prevented britain from

joining this treaty without the safeguards. i believe there will be opportunities in the future. i think that there are areas particularly in terms of costly regulation where britain has paid a high price from european regulation and i think we should use future opportunities to act on that. >> mr. bob russell. >> i bring some grandfatherly advice to the proceedings and urge the prime minister to let the dust settle, keep calm and carry on carefully. but please abandon the approach to europe and also bridges need to be built. and the first bridge the prime minister can build is to get the tory meps to join the main street group of conservatives. >> i'm very grateful for the grandfatherly advice. i remember the advice he used to give me when we both cycled into the house of commons many years ago so i'll take it carefully on

board. i'll take it carefully on board. i'll also take the reference and go away and give it a bit of thought. >> charles turner. >> mr. speaker, it's becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that the partners in this coalition are completely pointless. since the prime minister doesn't know the whereabouts of his deputy that mr. and mrs. clegg will be sending our -- did >> did he really an hour and 45 minutes for that? i think i'm very keen to old on to the rebate and i think these constituents might want a rebate as well. >> mr. speaker, we are here from outside and announcing that the position wouldn't give on whether he would have signed or not signed the veto last thursday. his aides are saying he would

not have signed it. can the prime minister press him to say to give us an answer on whether he would or wouldn't have signed the veto -- >> i'm very grateful my honorable friend has been on twitter or whatever it is the leader of opposition now uses. i believe it's possible to the leader of opposition could confirm whether he's going to say he wouldn't or wouldn't sign this treaty. i'm very happy to have a few more minutes. we got a bit of clarity from the leader of the labour party. >> i think the sensible approach in conformity with convention is to stick with questions, too, and answers from the prime minister in this chamber. >> in the words of one business leader today, margaret thatcher was a constant thorn in the side of european leaders where she never came to the negotiating table. i'm anxious at the implications of what the prime minister done.

when is he going to give business in this country the reassurance it needs about the impact on jobs and the economy and this country of actions of him walking away. >> i think business does understand that we must be in the european union for trade and growth and jobs. and our membership of the single market is the key but frankly there's a lot of damaging regulation coming from brussels. and we do need to stand up for that. and when new treaties are suggested, it involve a huge amount of fiscal changes and other changes within the european union it's right that britain should seek some safeguards. i'm not hearing the same message from business that he said. >> karen bradley. >> mr. speaker, there's so much this afternoon about the number of employed in financial services and i have to tell the house that over 2,000 of those jobs are located in my constituency. so could the prime minister reassure those employees that the action he took last week was in their interest to safeguard their jobs and not put them at unnecessary risk?

>> i can certainly do that and the honorable lady makes the important point that this is an industry that is based upon the country and not just in london but the protections of the single market go far beyond the financial services industry. >> mr. speaker, while the prime minister has likened his experience at e.u. negotiations playing chess against 26 different people, committee, therefore, tell us what attempts he has made to build alliances with those countries in some similar views in the u.k. that could have played with him rather than against him? >> look at the e.u. budget, they had to apologize by the budget goes up 4%, 5% or more because it's decided by qualified majority voting. i put together a qualified majority bloc so that we could get a real term freeze in the budget. that was help from germany, help from france, help from sweden. help from holland. that's the sort of constructive role we played. >> mr. speaker, i am pleased -- i'm pleased we have a a

chanceler who understands that we need to take tight control over the fiscal reins of this country and i'm pleased who has a prime minister who understands the difficult questions that need to be asked. i'm surprised he doesn't understand it and keep his mind open. but in all humility when the a chance the public will have a chance to speak up. >> i've said the answer about a referendum. i think there is a role for refuse rendum but that's when a government or parliament is prepared to give up power rather than just holding one at different times. >> ronnie campbell. >> can the prime minister tell the house how many countries outside the european union have free trade agreements with the european union? >> there's a growing number. obviously, countries like mexico, now we got the korea free trade agreement.

i'm keen to finalize the japan free trade agreement. i think effort should be made to have these treaties because they're good for both sides. >> can i pay tribute to the practical approach that the prime minister took to the negotiations at last week? and can i also say those practical obvious negotiations seem now to be supported by the leader of the opposition who they at the briefing say he would not sign the agreement the same way the prime minister did? >> either he has no control over his aides who are randomly briefing the press. [laughter] >> that is his position or he failed to el it the house that his, you know, minutes and minutes of intervention -- whether or not he would have signed -- look, you can -- if you want to sign it, then you can say i made the right decision. if you're not going to sign it then you have to accept i made the right decision. you either got to have the courage of your convictions or you got to give an answer.

>> jonathan ashworth. >> with the prime minister confirm that his veto does nothing to help financial services in the way he would want and now he's adopted a position of isolation, do you think he's more likely or less likely to win those safeguards in the future? >> the key safeguard we did get was against a treaty without proper protections and safeguards for the single market. that was in britain's interest to do that. and that's what the honorable gentleman needs to understand. >> simon hughes. >> after last week's isolation, the prime minister confirmed that he still agrees fully with the words of the coalition agreement which say that britain should play a leading role and a participant in the european union and that way it helps solve the economic crisis, we bring growth and jobs to the united kingdom? >> i completely agree with that. we're members of the european union. that membership hasn't changed. and the treaties that govern the single market, they haven't changed either. >> alex cunningham. >> we all know how the prime

ministers fills to build the alignments but could i tell what he's going to be doing in his days off when the other 26eu nations are sitting at the table, outside of the european zone? >> i'll be sorting out the mess that his party left when they left office. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend -- [inaudible] >> and brazil and also the far east but given the decline of european unions that we need to ensure robust relationships with asia and south america as much with the declining powers in the eu. >> i think my right honorable friend is right. we want to have the best of both worlds where we use that single market to drive free trade deals with countries in south and

central america and in the far east to actually we maximize trade for britain and europe and for the world. >> is it more likely than not that the 26 member states will agree amongst themselves courses of maximum financial services matters and that britain -- even if it has the right to oppose them in the full eu will not be able to stand out against the 26 who have agreed on their position amongst themselves? >> what i say to the honorable gentleman is that the new organization outside the eu cannot draw or implement things in terms of financial services or other things that impact the single markets. those things have to be done through the single market council. of course, there would always be difficulties in that single market council where, frankly, my right honorable friend has to fight very hard in terms of britain's corner. but the danger for us is allowing that treaty of the 17

to come in the eu without proper safeguards and that's why we behaved as we did. >> christopher pitcher. >> is my right honorable friend that the frontrunner for the french presidency in the election next year has said if elected he will tear up the accord because it is not right for france? i'm not suggesting that socialists appreciate it when britain stands up for itself but sadly there are socialists. >> i don't want to get drawn into the french connection of the campaign, i'm on extremely good terms with nicholas sarkozy and i believe the libya campaign proved that. but i will say one thing at least the opposition leader in france has told us what he thinks. [laughter] >> but i can they're tweeting and blogging for all their worth but they still don't have a policy. >> the prime minister has made reference the fsc in his statement and i have to say to the house that the prime minister selective memory loss it was him who was calling for

less in regulation of our financial services when he was in opposition. but can i say to him why was it better to put clegg, in the backbenches rather than stay in the room and stand up and fight for british interests. >> well, two points, the sfa only mentions three politicians and one of them is the shadow chancellor. the point about placating anyone, i think if you have your mind back on wednesday, i wasn't implicating anybody with a reasonable request that i was making of the european union. it was leadership on behalf of britain not any one part of it. >> my right honorable friend will be aware that he had overwhelming support of my constituency across the political spectrum. >> here, here. >> and if we have to safeguard jobs and expand the economy we must be equally robust in all our eu negotiations. he will know that the collins

fishery affects my constituency can my right honorable friend that his colleagues will follow his lead when negotiating on this matter? >> i know how important the cod issue is to his constituents and people right across that region and i'll make sure that ministers in the government stand up for our fishermen. >> the prime minister has stated that he wanted to deal with a level of 27 nations. why then did he end up having bilateral discussions with just three? >> well, the point about that is that it's quite clear that when it came to this issue of wanting a change to the treaty -- and i'll answer the question very directly that the germans and french were actually leading that particular charge and so it was very important to have discussions with that. but i also had discussions with the dutch and the swedish with the irish, with many others as well. >> i add my support to the prime

minister and to the coalition government in taking a tough decision under difficult circumstances. will the prime minister confirm that over and above our contribution to the european union we also buy more from europe than we export to it and the difference is about 100 billion in product which the eurozone would need at a moment to help them out of their own crisis? >> we do have a large trade deficit with europe. in fact, apart from one area which is financial services, frankly, i wish our economy was more rebalanced. we are aiming to rebalance our economy but it's very important in the meantime that we recognize realities. >> the successfully completion of the market could add 7% to the u.k. gdp. does the prime minister believe after thursday's summit he has more or fewer allies in europe for something that will be vital for our national interests? >> we have huge amounts of allies and support for action in

a single market. and actually if you look at what has happened in the last 18 months, there has been more positive steps taken by the european commission and in terms of the single market than i think there have been, frankly, for the last 10 years or more if you're looking at what happened is on the services directive, on energy and small business. i think the penny has finally dropped that europe does have a role here but it's one that needs to be about deregulation and it's no coincidence one of the reasons is because all of the 27 countries sitting around the table -- i think on him four of them are run by socialists. >> mr. speaker, many jobs in suffolk rely on a fair level playing field in the assemble market. if last friday morning wasn't the time to stand up for british interests, when other time would it have been the case? >> i think the honorable lady is right. when it comes to institutional arrangements and treaty arrangements in the european union they have to be agreed by unanimity and if you're not content with what is being put forward then i think it is

perfectly acceptable to do what i did and to say i'm not happy to go ahead with the treaty without any safeguards. >> the prime minister has heard from members on both sides of the house about the worries of manufacturing industry. can he specifically say what exporting firms think that it's going to make exporting harder or easier? >> well, i frankly found a huge support from the business community from what i've said and that expands a huge number of different industries for many industries are asking themselves the question about what are we going to do about the problem of excessive regulation and that is something that should be dealt with through the single market and we'll continue to do that. >> robert bucklin. >> mr. speaker, as someone has a -- [inaudible] >> positive role and europe. can i recommend -- [inaudible] >> will he commit the government in carrying on strongly with our european partners to ensure more jobs and growth in the single

market? >> i'm very grateful to my honorable friend's support. and i have to say i spoke to a number of people over the last few days, whether in this party or in other parties who have a long history of supporting britain's membership of the eu who think i did is right. of course, we need to engage and we have to make it in terms of the single market even more powerful in the weeks and months ahead. i think it was right on this occasion to say no to this treaty. >> mr. ian austin. >> there's one member of the government that doesn't share all things antipathy britain. and when they chanted hitler, hitler -- honorable members might not take it -- >> order. order, but i think -- order. i'm simply capable of handling these matters myself. if i wouldn't ask i wouldn't ask

back beverages or anyone else. he asked his question earlier. order. it was perfectly in order for him to do so but we are here discussing the european summit and the prime minister's statement on it. the honorable gentleman is an ingenuous fellow -- order! i know i'm being helpful to the honorable gentleman. i've known him since we were at university together, 29 years. i've probably forgotten more about him than in the first. but he can use other methods to get his point across and i'm sure he will. >> it's the only faction taken by my right honorable's friend to tackle our own deficit that has made us is safe haven in europe and given us is choice last week. is it not the case if we had followed the economic policies advocated by those in the benches opposite that they would not for us for help that it would be begging to europe to beg us out. >> my honorable friend makes a

good point. when you look back, british interest rates and greek interest rates were previously equivalent at 4.5% and we had similar size deficits at that time. what happened since then is a huge increase in greek interest rates and a decline in british interest rates partly because we have a plan and shown we've got a plan to deal with our debts and our deficit. >> the populace poll reported today shows that only 14% of the public opposed the prime minister's actions. does that not just show that this side of the house are totally in touch with public opinion and the opposite side is not? >> i'm very grateful to the honorable lady for what she says. what i noticed about that poll there's over 50% in support of what we've done and she said 14%. the leader of the labour party does have a constituent of opinions. that's people who haven't yet made up their mind. [laughter] >> mr. david morris.

>> mr. speaker, may i -- may i first of all congratulate my honorable friend the prime minister for all the strength he has shown in leading our country. and also may i ask to the prime minister that in the tabloid press, 40 billion would have gone over to europe. that's 642 pounds for every man, woman and child in this country. may i congratulate the prime minister and say thank you for stopping that from happening and also for himself to remind the opposition that seeing as he would now not have signed the treaty, would he reconsider that we're not cast adrift on the waves -- we are now the financial lifeboat of europe? >> i'm grateful for my honorable friend about his question. the question of the budget is important because there's a net contributor every extra percentage point does result in a big transfer from britain to brussels. and so i think it's important we've managed to achieve a freeze. >> mr. simon kirby.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate the prime minister on his strong and decided leadership and not only doing bess for britain but for the constituent in my constituency the world financial services. >> yeah, yeah. >> can i thank my honorable friend who's made a number of sacrifices on my behalf over the last 18 months and one is to wait until the very last of this marathon question session. i'm delighted that he believes we've done the right thing for britain and the right thing for

toi'oday, we have erik sdt, >> i would like to introduce him and then he will make some remarks and we will have time for questions. can i have your attention for a moment, please? thankve you. e eric schmidt is the executive chairman of google, and for ten years served as the ceo and august of 2001 until april of this year. during the time he served its je growth was phenomenal. when he joined the company in 2001 it had $20 million ofearnis revenue, no cash and no had

earnings. when it went public it have a market value of $23 billion. it went up as high as the marke0 value of two entered $30 billiod higher than the ipo price and today is a market value of abouf $202 billion is the highest market if all you of any compang in the united states.rik joinedn 2001. he had previously servedded as ceo of nobel, which he sold to cam bridge technologies, and then joined google in 2001. he's innative of the washington area born in gw hospital in washington -- yes -- and he grew up in the area, and went to yorktown high school in arlington, was a store academic performer there, a graduate in one year -- with one year less

of high school than normal and also was a track star winning nine letters in track and field, went to princeton, graduated from princeton in electrical engineering, and then he went from princeton to university of california berkley getting a master's degree in computer science, and in 1982, a ph.d. in computer science. from there, he went to work at xerox and he worked in the computer science lab, and then from there, went to work in a few other technology company, and ultimately went to work at sun microsystems there for software manager rising up to be the chief technology officer for sun microsystems and recruitedded away to be the ceo of nobel. today, as executive chairman of google, he is actively involved in a number of public issues that he'll talk about and many ways is the public face and washington face of google, but

he also has time for other outside activities. he has served on the board of trustees of principle university and carnegie melon and now on the board of advanced city, and is an adviser to the president of the united states, adviser to the president's transition team, and now serves as an adviser to the president's commission on science and technology and innovation, and he has a wide range of technology issues that he's expert on, and he's going to talk this morning about something that i think you'll find interesting, and then we'll talk about google and privacy issues now in the forefront. my pleasure to introduce a real technology leader in our country, eric schmidt. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you so much. this is a wonderful group, and david has been a colleague and a friend for more than a decade. i have been looking at society

and trj now, especially in my new role, and i think all of us would agree that society should organize itself so people can go and search for their dreams, that they should be able to achieve what they really want, and we have this emergence now of an interesting new phenomena. it's as though we have two rival systems. we have the system that we know today, governments, politics, law, which in many ways are beginning to converge around international law and all the other things you are experts in, but we have another society that is emerging with the society of cyberspace, which has in many ways its own unifying principles, all of you are familiar with them, and they are beginning to come in conflict, especially in some governments and some places because they are empowering people in the way they were never empowered before, so you can think of this as a community of citizens, and then a society of governments,

and i've become convinced as they work it out, a new equilibrium emerges which is, in fact, better for both, that the cyberspace world, one that i spend a loot of time in -- lot of time in will ultimately serve to keep governments,s and especially the bad governments we know of in other places of the world, more honest in many, many ways, and it also some of the bad things going on in cyberspice will be addressed by the way that the physical word, by the governments and so forth handling of it. to me, the way this will play out has a lot to do with how our political systems work, and since we're in washington, i thought i would ask a relatively simple question, which is how long is the future? anyone have an opinion? now, most of you would say your own life or the life of your family or your children or your grandchildren or what have you,

but if you're a political person, it's two years or four years or six years in some country, and if you're a government official who does not have a budget, it's a week. [laughter] so when you think about the intersection of all of this, it's important to understand that the intersection of incentives because ultimately human systems are flawed. they are not perfect, but they are often driven by incentives we construct for them, and now with our world and with the interpret, we can actually measure these things, study them, and try to really understand how it plays out. now, in the united states, the president whose speech last week talked about this. my assessment of what's going on in the western world is the western world is dealing with two fundamental crisis. the first issue has to do with globalization, and this interconnectedness that is happening naturally is not going to stop. the technology's going to

continue. there's all sorts of reasons why we're interconnected, the world is getting smaller and a livable place, but the other thing happening is because of business innovation and so forth and so on, the western world has a jobless problem, but when i look at it, and i spend time talking about it around the world, i'm convinced there is an answer, and that answer is the hard answer, unfortunately. investing in education, especially math and science education, creating models for innovation in your country and so forth, getting rid of roadblocks to creating new businesses because that's ultimately where the jobs are created. what's interesting in my traveling now and when i come back to the u.s., i read the paper and so forth, and it's as though many of the debates are fact free, and one of the things that we can do now is -- [laughter] i mean, am i saying something that's a surprise? i think it's true; right?

i'm a scientist, so i looked there, i look on the internet, and you can actually answer these questions, so i was looking at, you know, i was in europe last week looking at the dollar, okay, and there's a $20 bill, the back is 5 picture of the white house saying "in god we trust." repeat after me. i have 5 new, new saying. in god we trust, all others must bring data. . . i think it's more interesting to talk to david and see what dewolf think. technology is at a point now where we are seeing the emergence of a number of global scope of forms that are impressive in their reach beyond

the ability for them to change the world. i'm going to take the lead to pick four of them. one of the ms. apple. i was on the board for a while. platforms. best in the world. people love them. o a s scalable. d they do a very good job. let's look at facebook to read a people platform. a global platform of people and how they work together and allte these companies compete withh oi each other in various ways.tform amazon and google as an information platform. the sc the scalable network architect terseterse that the technology s delivering are rolling through the incumbency's of one time or another political systems, business systems etc., etc. and a number of other companies' lobbying to be on the list or replace companies in that regard. the construction of these is probably the most important new sort of business story we see

today. the corporations are very high and they are not done. the year just beginning. they are just beginning because of more's law that says computers get faster and double every two years. that means every two years the computers will be 30 times faster. do the math. the connectivity allows us to do amazing things and google and other companies are working hard on the future and ability to predict things like new people to new ideas. so my view if i've met this out is we should be very optimistic about all of this. the world is not perfect but the world is going to be a much safer place, much more informed. the value of the platforms, and i think american values, speaking as a proud citizen, the thing we can bring to the world will change a lot of the countries and risk people out of

poverty. we are in this perverse situation it's more important to have a mobile phone than to have running water in your home. that is how powerful drug of information and connectivity communication and globalization really is. my own view is over the next five for ten years the computers and humans will be distinguishable. or not merging, trust me. humans will be very good at what we do. and tuition, fund, innovation, innovation, things we know and love about yourself and computers will get extraordinarily good about the things they are very good out which is the needle in a haystack problems and infinite memories. so why go somewhere i want my phone to remind me i was in this city and i did have a good time and here's where i say it and all of this is possible on this device. when i say it's possible on this

device it's important to remember it is connected to a network many people work very hard to build which is remarkable in and of itself the wireless network and the lawyers network and they are super computers which are in fact answering my question. so why don't think of this as my mobile phone i think of this as my personal supercomputer that can answer any question i care about in life. thank you very much. [applause] >> it really does say that by the way. in god we trust. >> where's the other part though? >> and new currency. >> thank you very much. i want to talk about the questions some of the things you talked about before we leave up to that. i want to ask a little about your background and how you helped build google. you were minding your own business, and all of a sudden

john as i understand called you up and said you should get to meet these guys starting or running a company called google and use i have no interest in that. is the right? >> we had a fund-raising party at john chambers house and he came up to me and said there is this interesting company, very good salesman, i immediately assumed it was a terrible idea. [laughter] and he badgered me and said you should at least talk to them and on the theory that you should talk to people and john has good taste in people i thought i would go visit them. spec you interviewed them -- >> was very strange. it was some place i had an office in which was bizarre itself. you walk in with and they have an office of a share and they have all this food, for me i guess, and they had projected my biography on the wall and they proceeded to grill me on my views of the technology called proxy caches.

there was a pretty big ego at the time coming and i thought this is strange about 25, you know, sort of pretty strong minded, and they were absolutely wrong in my opinion and i was right in my view. so we had this huge argument for an hour and a half, and then they said goodbye and you didn't know how the interview went. >> it wasn't an interview it was an argument. [laughter] the funny thing is as i am looking out the door i had this sense that i would be back. i had too much fun being right and then to be wrong, and the postscript is important to state that they're under a winning argument was the device that i was making would completely fail because the adoption rate of the internet and improvements in fiber-optic would make my product useless. they were completely right. [laughter] which is very humbling to have a 25-year-old do that to you. it's also very important the only reason we bought youtube is

that you to needed this device and we built the privy that i was right. [laughter] >> it's said that they interviewed or had arguments with ten other people before they got to you. have you ever run into these people and think they could've done the same thing that you did? >> they had interviewing people you have to spend the week interviewing them so they went skiing with people, this kind of thing. i declined. two of the people -- what is interesting is one day i was talking to john and said i'm the luckiest guy in the world for having this opportunity, generally in my view. and he said no, you're not. what do you mean? you did one thing right. and i said what? he said you said yes. two other people said no. i want to pause there to say something about saying yes in life coming and we tend to sort of we know everything coming and

i knew everything and trust me, i really did know everything and they were wrong and i was right, i'm still sore on that, but somehow i said yes to a new opportunity and change my life. >> have you ever run into those people who said no? >> yes. it's a pleasant conversation. [laughter] i'm very nice to them. >> so when you showed up to work there when you sold your company in the early days, you had a tiny little office and then one day you shall what in the office and somebody's in your office and he's just kind of takeover your office. how does that work? >> early google was bizarre. it was run like a garage with school and everyone had an opinion which is good for a startup, i think. so i had been assigned an office, and eight-point office by myself with a door and i had a computer and my little desk and one morning i come in and there's a gentleman who had moved in to the i said hello. he said hello. what do you do?

iowa programmer. what do you do here? you know, i've moved in. i said well why did you move fannin? my office is very crowded. and i said well we're is your office? he said this is my office. i'm over there. i had five people and you were never here. laughter because at this point i had a problem because i did not want to create a cultural for dhaka, which would be to do something. so, what to do. so i asked my secretary and she said yeah he just moved in. okay. [laughter] she said go talk to wayne which engineering. he said yeah, absolutely i told him he should move right in. i said thanks, wayne. so he has a little desk and we literally sit closer to this and he is a programmer, he is doing his programming which not

familiar with produce and again you are the ceo. [laughter] i sit there with my computer and the phone rings, we use the phone occasionally and maybe a few weeks into this he's playing his music which is falling. i'm suspicious that he is listening. so one day i'm on the phone with the a regional vice president of sales and we are having this discussion about the quarter and this was a quarter where we were on track for according to amid about 118 of revenue. this was based on his survey and the analysis and to making sales and this was something i had a lot of experience doing. you try to judge. you don't want to overcome that them. and amid this is excuse me, but i know the revenue numbers. and i said how do you know the revenue number? i just solve it. i said how did you solve it? what i do is i build the hour system, i can calculate it. this is the number, 142 million.

so i decided i would not tell amid that i knew this. so for the next month as the numbers slowly came up, i was busy spending more money ahead because i knew this fact. and so i learned something about business which i did not know which is you should be able to predict your business down to a few dollars in terms of revenue outlook just from statistical measurements and so forth. and google one of the things we did is this sort of analytical measurement down to the second. i suspect some business and social net works to do this because you can do it. amid and i became best friends. estimate is he the person that came up with the slogan do no evil? >> he is one of them. >> what does that actually mean? >> i assume it was a joke. they like to play jokes. one day we had one of sight that was first and last. larry showed up and they listened and so forth and at the

end they said the most important questionnaire is it the 100 billion-dollar corporation, and i said does that mean revenue or evaluation? they said it doesn't matter. [laughter] i give up. i will never be able to work with you guys. i found out later that this is something that they did with everyone. but in the early days -- >> so i'm sitting there and they would do these things and i figure this is a joke this is a normal place. we are sitting there and there is an ad product being proposed and one of the engineers whose name is rahm -- i'm at the end of the table and this is the original building i remember -- he pounds the table and he says that would be evil and it's like a bomb goes off in the room. i decided just to watch to see what happens. so then the whole schedule gets thrown away. they spend an hour and a half having a detailed conversation with the particular advertising

change crosses the line and they ultimately decided not to do it. the real reason don't be fooled works is it is a thing you can pull out in the company. it is a clever design. it means and please feel like they can speak out against the ceo, against the executives. >> when you joined the company, conventional wisdom in silicon valley was the search was an afterthought. was thought that portals were the way to go. so what was it that actually google did that make its search engines so much better than everybody else in the zoom past the ever engines that were out there of which there were many others before google. >> in 1998, 1999, larry page with sergey himself invented a pain shrink. a different way of linking to read up and told them the portals use it based on the form number of clicks and things like that. the court of google innovation that brought us to sort of today

is the analysis is not around how many times you get hit or so forth. it's more about two points to do. mathematically for those of you for technical it is an inverse transform over a billion yen at matrix, which you take all of the links and you sort of invert and then figured out the structure. it was invented as i said by larry with the help of sergey. it is one of the most widely cited papers in the industry. and i would argue that if you want to create a company of google's scale, you need that kind of innovation. you need some kind of organizational access. >> early on they had some people would call with a graduate school kind of atmosphere on the campus and so forth and they said as university professors can take time to do other things in the employee can take 20% of their time doing what ever they want. does that produce any ideas that were useful? >> it is another corporate of the value still in place today. what we say to the technical folks is you can spend 20% of

your time working on anything you want. and these are engineers. they are not that exciting. [laughter] they tend to work in the area of their expertise. and it does two things. first, they're has been a series of product sales to read a lot of the map stuff and research innovation that comes to this. somebody tinkering or some new idea that they have. but there's another thing that it does in the culture of the company. most american corporations and even worse outside of the company outside of the u.s. are very high article. the ideas come from the top, the leadership comes from the top and so forth. it doesn't bode well when you are managing creative people. i don't believe it is a good way managing a company at all, letting the people generate ideas and then you sort of kroll from them. in the 20% case what happens is you get a sort of middle manager who is on an ego trip. well you know, you've got to do this, and all of us have either done this or have been part of it. under huge pressure and so forth. the employee can look at that

manager legally and squarely in the eye and say i will give you 100% of my 80%. i will do everything i can in my 80%. i said these people work very hard. we did a lot of productivity of them plus we bring them lunch, breakfast, dinner and they bring their pets. there was a problem. i had to establish a rule that you could not live in the building. [laughter] you actually had to have a residence. it was against the law to reside -- >> these people were coming together dry cleaning -- >> we did everything. but you had to have a bed somewhere else or stay in a hotel. >> what is it like to run a company where you have to founders, three of you kind of running the company. you're the ceo and they were the founders that can the stock. how did you resolve things when you disagree among ourselves? >> generally come allin the first place it is always in my view is better to have a partner or to as long as they have the same goals.

even though we would argue violently sometimes over things and people would sort of assume this is terrible the way we worked out, they are strong-willed, strong-willed as well, but we all have the same incentive which was to build a great corporation. i think if you had that and people are at least at some level socially compatible they will be separated by age and have the same professors, similar culture of background, similar search of personal views of life coming and so we sort of segregative around. i worked on building the organization making the trains run on time, running the meetings, establishing the intellectual basis. they ran ahead. so there was never the meeting that i was an involving product where they haven't already had the meeting and will board by nine. there was never a situation i was able to add value to what they were doing. because they literally were running ahead and so my job was to catch up and make sure the company was behind it. >> people frequently google themselves i gather to see what

if you've ever googled yourself what comes out -- it is important to the state employees a ceo can not change any result in any order especially if people that like the order will call us know, we do not change it. and in fact one of the crown principles of the company is the answer is we give our independent of any other factors we get lots of criticisms about our ranking but also it involves making the decision and these are the best decisions the coursg of a rhythm anake .. to get tired of google it is that you and/or sergey and leary had to interview the people oral for c. can you still physically do that and what is the best way to get hired? i heard it's harder to get hired at google than to get her in harvard. >> statistically it is true.

we run -- this was a leary idea to run the hiring committee's different than the nominee to the companies higher. the way you how your people is a manager knows somebody and they like them and work with the men have good references you hire them. we reject that pattern that one yet we do is run hiring patterns like a community does so we help hire the person independent of the job so we bring people in and say we are hiring people we won't tell you what you are going to work on. it also helps us with our intellectual property protection and people come. the hiring committees were interesting. as we study the question of how many interviews did you have to have? this poor gentleman we interviewed 16 times before we rejected him. it was sort of out of control. so why initially mandated the number to eight maximum number of interviews you would give people before you decide because if you were interviewing people that many times, they are on the

edge in which case you are better off letting them work somewhere else. we've since modified that to the magic number of five. what we do this we correlate the outcome of hiring in our feedback post hiring compared to the feedback before and found this productive to do so basically you can run of committee in five interviews and off you go. when he went public it was a complicated style called the dutch auction. why does he use that style and reject what was then and will st.? and was that the right decision? >> google is in the business of what is called botched options. what happens is you advertise on google, published a price that you are willing to offer to have this and coming and we will give you the price of the person who is lower than you so you are guaranteed a price equal to that price or lower.

and this produces the most efficient option possible. we probably run more in the world than any other organization and probably will always be doing that. so when we face the question in public, the question is do we want to go through the traditional mechanism of underwriting, which was largely the negotiation, and one of the board members said the problem of interest, self-interest between the bankers said the company is an unsolved problem. of course at google we decided we would try to solve this problem, and we were carried in the press for this for many, many reasons. what happened was i got a letter from a little old lady or and of little old lady saying that she did not want to have access -- she wanted to double to purchase the stock and not be limited to the institutional investors so we embark on this process which is the hybrid where people could both retail and public investors could bid on the price.

but for reasons that i don't think that we never understood, the outcome that we got was pretty similar in my view to what we would have gotten had begun an institutional, traditional institutional thing. i wouldn't say that our experience proved one thing or the other. >> when you did go public you created a fair amount of wealth and silicon valley and elsewhere. how do you deal with the effect that hundreds of your employees were not fabulously wealthy? with a still working as hard and how did the change of your culture of the company? >> people joined the company to change the world, not to make a large amount of money so for them it was entertaining that all the money showed up. and the google as a phenomena was so fast during this time we simply had a decade's worth of experience in a year. see you have ipo, career path make too much money what to do with my life, so forth and the role 30-years-old. it's all compressed. but the same movie just run a

faster. the same will occur now when the bubble with of the ipo in 2012. they all go through the similar phenomena because these are young people and they also join the company's four reasons. >> for example, facebook was a company some people say is going to go public next year. is that one of your biggest competitors now; is that your biggest competitor for what you're trying to do? >> today we have one very clear competitor which is microsoft. we used to have two competitors with yahoo! yahoo! largely outsourced stuff to microsoft, so we see them as the sort of core competitor. we have additional competition from different quarters. facebook is the competitor with a lot of properties and also with attention. we are more likely to face new competition. there is lots coming in the vertical the applications that answer questions. we haven't talked about a very much yet but the mobile phones, people search differently on the

mobile phone in the next year more searches will come off of mobile devices and more pages than on the pcs and macs. it is a huge change so that provides a new competitive front. >> 20% did that produce ideas like an google earth or google news and have you made money from all of the 20% kind of things? >> google news was 20% time and it was an acquisition. one of the things we haven't talked much about is a lot of the acquisition to the small companies for talent and typically larry and sergey would buy them and tell me after the the demint which was always exciting. [laughter] to see what showed up. very nice people, always. [laughter] so android showed up, google earth showed up and they said this sort of technical framework which we would then plow resources into scale. >> recently you said that you would buy a company a week and you don't disclose them. he said you didn't necessarily

feel you have to disclose them. why is that? >> generally we do disclose them. maybe in some sense we afford it or they are too small. the ideals acquisition as for technical people who can solve a very precise problem who are brilliant and don't have a lot of the high valuation already. a quarter of the search is still on the internet or alleged to be pornographic. >> that's not true. the number is significantly lower. >> lubber or higher? >> lower. thank goodness. >> how do you deal with the issue of pornography and people living searches through google? how do you keep that -- >> since the beginning of the company, the company had saved search moderate, and so you are unlikely to encounter pornography unless you are looking for it, in which case as long as it is adult pornography it will show up. one of our employees, matt,

would run an internal test. i walked in and felt a strange culture. his wife would bake cookies and if you could find porn his wife would give you a cookie. as we have a company full of people searching for porn to try to break the porth algorithm. i said come on, match. but indeed it is how the company is sort of police did. >> today let's suppose somebody is going up for the senate confirmation and the senate were to call you and say we would like to see rather this person has looked for pedophilia kind of searches. can we actually google in a single person in the country of the world has actually looked for and you can give that information to the government or to a google employee? >> we would only do so under a large number of court orders. so that's the first answer. there are situations where we maintain people's increase and

in fact you'll see on the website is quite a detailed. it is identifiable to the ip address is on the order of a year. this is important. identifiable to the address is not only to do, david. ford said with your surgeon from your corporation that would show up as a corporation it wouldn't be identifiable to you. we have had a series of cases the government has decided to do broad subpoenas where we have fought because we want to respect the rights of individuals but it is true that for a program of time the record of the searches is retained, and then at a certain point we analyze it and we cannot mize it in a certain way that you couldn't go back if an employee were to do what you are describing the would be fired. >> could a google employee let's say they don't like this person that they think that they are running for the wrong kind of things on the search and could that person get access to the

information? begin would be extremely difficult because they did have to do the targeting as well as get into the data logs. we haven't had such a situation and we've had a lot of protection. right now in china you have had some discussions back and forth. what is the current situation? are you staying in a china or -- >> the government has a truly bad set of censorship laws. they are active in the censorship and it is illegal to talk about them certainly and china and dangerous to talk about them even here. but roughly speaking, if you criticize some of the senior political leaders or talk about certain religions and so forth, it is very much a crime and you can be -- all sorts of bad things can happen to you. so after trying to work with that for about four years, four and a half years, we decided we couldn't deal with it anymore so we moved to the over china. they always say one country, two systems. we like the other system better,

which is hong kong. china is organized in the great fire wall which we are not allowed to reveal the existence of but i can give you the url address so you can look at it yourself and it's been heavily studied by many people here. the fire wall is a series of service is basically that when you go through, will allow you are doing and if it is one of these forbid in terms and what have you it shuts down the connection or puts it up for review and that's technically how it works. it turns out to be one of the firewalls between hong kong and the mainland. if you are in hong kong you can see all of google and if you were in beijing and i was very few weeks ago you can't see the same thing. the way you get around it is using a technology called the virtual private networks and all of the americans that were there know about this. if you have chinese colleagues they will tell you about it. they are well aware of them and so they play walkable.

bpm wham. there are techniques they're using about the censorship which is quite bad to the estimate there is legislation in congress now that you for opposing dealing with the so-called i guess dealing with the pirating of copyrighted for mission. why are you opposed to this? >> mostly because it criminalizes the intermediaries. the first comment i would make is that please, don't steal copyright content. it's against the law and we need these people to be able to build of their businesses and to actually make money. google exists to take people to high-quality content. i hope that is clear. the problem is that industry has overreached. what they've said is we are going to criminalize the structure of the internet itself. so if someone posts copyrighted copy the video, we are going to force the intermediaries which include google and many others and so forth to take down the

link. this is known as censorship of the internet link. if you do that, you were doing the same thing all of these other governments want to do. so two reasons this is important. the one is this is a problem we want to develop the tools we in our country to follow the money the people who are making money from the pirated content it is illegal. and with the internet we can find them and they can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and they should be. we can track it in all sorts of ways. but if law passes there will be large number of american farms who will build a very, very powerful filtering content technology which will then be a very much used of the world and i can assure you i hope not in america but all these other countries i visited they are going to love hacking away at the structure of the internet to recall that free-speech, all the

stuff they don't like and the internet will get balkanized. >> you recently said that google tv would soon be embedded on all of the televisions in the united states or of a world. what will google tvd and why would be embedded? >> it is on its second version and we are in the process of obtaining agreements. it's free by the ways to please feel free to use it on your television as well it's by the television manufacturers many of them putting on a high television's it is the first system that various television and the internet world. so you turn on and watch television. the moment you want to you can switch over to you to be and the other video services etc. and you can see everything. but more importantly, you can now write a program that will intermix the two. so in television you can overlay the data sources. this has been a dream of people in the media industry for decades and it's based on and

tried and chroma which is a successful grocer and operating platform from google that in large people devolving for it. what is interesting is it is very controversial because people are afraid somehow is going to interrupt the way that television should be working. my view is that it will cause people to watch more television. they will have a second screen somewhere and the game consoles. if there's any way we can get the integrated to promote more television. spec today use and more time in washington where you were born as i mentioned earlier and grew up in this area. you would not because you love the area so much but -- >> i love to the senate. [laughter] i have a great deal of respect for the senate. >> to spend a lot of time dealing with government officials. ytd google has attracted so much attention? your product doesn't cost anybody money. why are so many people upset

about some of the things google does? >> i think in the first place, the folks that are looking at google here and in europe have a job to do, and there are plenty of complaints about google almost all it seems to me from the business partners who were unhappy with something the we did and we are a pretty big fish in the ocean, what ever met before you want. it's also been funded by somebody who should know better which is microsoft and so there is a lot of evidence that this is largely about competitive dynamics. i said in my testimony that it's very important to understand that google does not block access to anything. if we make the innovation we continue to offer the information that we previously did. i feel like it this point we told that story and it is now a legal matter. i'm quite confident we are in good shape. >> you spend some time with president obama and you were a supporter of his. would you say that silicon

valley is today as supportive of him as they were when he first ran and would you ever consider going into the government full-time? >> the latter one is tolino but had -- not only no but heck no. [laughter] you had your share of dealing with the government. i know you share my view. i continue the support of the obama administration and what they are trying to do with silicon valley, it is in california obviously and it tends to be united as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. so there's very little difference between the democratic and republican people within the committee that i live in and we live in our own little bubble.

we have not only does and economic situation the rest of the country has had and so forth so i don't think that silicon valley is a particular predictive group of the rest of america. the president clearly has strong support although not as strong as it did before. as you know in the presidency, the presidency is the choice about a person and people make that decision for many reasons, not just the programs and what have you. >> we have a great deal of wealth by almost any standard and you were a young man buy almost any standard so what would you like to do with the rest of your active years? would you like to stay at google as another company and spent time of philanthropy? what would you like to do the next ten or 15 years? >> for me personally i am interested in the future of everything. the ride that i have had it's hard to explain because it happens so fast and it will happen again and again and again because the nature of the

internet in the society. they will be threatened and or changed by all of the things i'm talking about. i'm also not quite convinced many governments will be effective and fall about necessarily the united states where they don't anticipate the empowerment that the new technological model was providing. those are the problems. >> i think we've time for questions. people can raise their hand and there is a microphone there. so, you are also a pilot as understand and wanted to learn how to fly and you had time to fly while you are also working? >> i fly with professional products i should add. i sort started flying when i was at noval because it was hard to do a turnaround. you only have one of turnaround in your professional career, so that was mine. they are very difficult. i learned how to fly in and the instructor said basically you have to focus on this or you

will kill yourself. so it was a good focusing device. >> anybody have a question? back there, yes. stand up. there's a microphone there. >> first of all, thank you for coming. i find it absolutely fascinating just a couple of things. today i noticed the magnetic poles was one of the discussions. what do you think of that? and then i often use google earth. what is the information used for? >> mauney view on the magnetic poles is that we should have a physicist expert on such matters. [laughter] the consensus on the physics is a pretty the best i can understand consensus of the threats from the nuclear age it isn't a high one although it is

at least possible but there are many things that are possible. but again, let's have the fact based conversation and say with nuclear weapons if the nuclear proliferation, the very real danger of people stealing the stuff and dirty bombs and those sort of things that we are all well aware of. there are the two major threat to society and loss of life. the first is nuclear war which we hope will never happen and the second is the compound accelerating effective climate change if that occurs with water and so forth at the skill possible we don't really know. with respect to google birth, and using information, what kind of information do you mean? >> google earth [inaudible] >> in the first place when you are running google earth, we don't know where you are so spend as much time in north corrine as you like. [laughter]

google earth, even the lie in a pilot i did not appreciate how it was to have a third dimension not the worst. did you know fred siegel have now proven that cows of range themselves in a magnetic field direction? this is discovered using google earth by scientists who must have nothing else to do looking for cows and their alignment and heads and tails, a particular order. no one is quite sure. is one of the mysteries of the modern age. [laughter] the impact craters that hadn't occurred before. we have been able to charge the loss of the by university and the changes and so forth. in really remarkable ways. the thing out google earth is the pictures of instantaneous for many reasons. we did not want to have to deal real-time satellite feed. so there's a wait-and-see in that part of the design. >> with the devices do you use? do you use an ipad?

>> everything. space your on facebook use twittered. >> google plus. [laughter] >> i would encourage all of you to use this not just google or anybody else. the reason is that there are differences between them. i think you learn a lot like playing with them. your children will use them all anyway. you might as well just sort of spent the time. it is what our age is about. and i marvel and at what people are willing to say and do and construct and build. today it was announced in the of crossed the million mobile the applications platform on primarily this device which was an android phone. this in my view is the best film ever made. i say that with a bias it's been off for a week. it's called the nexus prime, android iphone. there are more mobile applications coming out faster than any point in the world than

i have seen. if you are young person today, as a programmer like i was, building from a mobile phone. that's where the action is. >> if facebook were to go public at once a $100 billion on the region you had a chance to buy it at that valuation, would you buy it? >> i haven't seen their internal -- the history -- i will tell you the numbers. in the ipo history the majority are lower at six months after they go public than the price they go public at. that would inform my decision. it is at least two-thirds lower. it's quite startling. when we went public, and of course we are all fair and our partners on the trading floor. so how did you actually start treating? well, they have a fellow whose name is killer, and i am not making this up. she's a young man the screams a lot. so we are sitting there jet lagged a polite and maybe you'll remember this. we are sitting there and we run in and there is a guy that is at

exactly noon killer will start to trading and he starts screaming it is going this way and that way and somehow it stabilizes. so before -- when you think about the ipo, remember that there is no trading price and killer is during the first trade. [laughter] >> question here. wayne. >> [inaudible] >> the question is on a personal basis -- in the first place google earth had something called google ocean. you can go from the earth and go right into the wrecks and other things we discovered in the ocean. the ocean has 70% of the globe. the majority of the cultural value diversity that is being lost is being lost in the oceans. there is a mass extinction going on right now primarily because of the ocean acidification, things like that. it affects the weather cycle.

the oceans are a source of food, 40% of humans come on and on and on. there is very little understood about what is going on in the ocean and there's a million of mountains underneath the ocean unmapped and u.n. naim. think about how big those or underwater. it can't reach them accept with sonar which slowly and with and very slow. they know these facts because they can look at the magnetic fields from satellites that is the level. so interested in funding research and to how to address all this. >> speaking of the search, research, when google was coming along, some people thought it would do well, some people were not so sure. give me your technology background. where would you suggest somebody might invest if they wanted to find the next company what area would you think it would be unclean energy or some other technology related kind of company would carry a are you most attracted to as a way that if you were an investor to make

money? spec as a part of the project i worked on evidence to manufacturing product where which the president actually announced the program at carnegie mellon. the problem in america is that there is a loss of manufacturing jobs soared on the way of agriculture if you will. and i think many of us and probably you would agree that the loss of the manufacturing in the united states is a problem from the sort of profitability lifestyle. so all of their industries where we could be a manufacturing leader there is a whole new set of advanced materials and drugs and so forth and so on. the problem with climate change and green energy is very high kunkel costs whereas the industry that line in which is the network the capitol costs are relatively fixed and you have high rates of growth because of the scale so it's easier to operate and the more

capital-intensive industries. you understand this in your business because you have invested in a number of these and especially when the capitol markets are tight. every woody could make a lot of money when the capitol was cheap because it's easy when the interest rates are low deutsch and invest in these factories and do what the fremont and capitalist tight we do not have that country. semifinal question would be where do you think the ego is bigger, and silicon valley or in washington, d.c. based on your experience? >> i think that there is a serious complication. [laughter] >> i want to thank you very much for your time and i appreciate everybody coming. thank you very much. [applause] >> the first map of d.c. and you were born somewhere in there. >> thank you, david. >> thank