left-hand corner there had but we now know is early onset alzheimer's disease. she had it in her 50s. when she died, dr. alzheimer's took her brain and look at it under a microscope and saw what we now know is a hallmark. the plaques are these that we now are filled with amyloid protein in the tables are filled. until just recently, that without alzheimer's disease disease was diagnosed. for most people that's a little late to be useful. so we now have new techniques that allow us to diagnose people. there's quite a few, but the biggest one is your age. the good news is he's got another birthday and you live longer but the risk for alzheimer's increase.

a greater risk for getting alzheimer's. we are learning more about the heart and head connection. note that there is a greater risk if you have high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, high cholesterol. so what is good for your heart is good for your brain. a lot of the same strategies we want to talk about his head injury. that's a risk that her for alzheimer's and dementia. their son genetic components as well. it is a risk gene. you are not guaranteed to get alzheimer's disease, just if your risk is higher. i just want to mention that if you've got a brain. designer one of the room have a brain? [laughter] i told that joke ready regularly. don't feel picked on because you're in a room full of politicians. [laughter]

but if you've got a brain you are a risk for alzheimer's disease. that is important. just remember that. [laughter] so as i said, we know a lot more about risks. there are things you can do to lower your risk. that's the same advice we've been giving people with heart disease for years as it applies to bring help as well. so get out and exercise. adopt a healthy regimen that is good for your heart, good for your brain. we need to get the blood pumping. we need to get things moving and that's useful for lowering risk. we also do a healthy diet. also, lifelong learning. don't just get to a certain age and save learned everything i need to learn. keep challenging yourself. these strategies may do that alzheimer's disease, but they're certainly useful in slowing the

normal aging -- the normal kind of aging. so it keeps your brain healthy, keep you back, keeping it moving is really important. we also know there's a lot more we can learn about those factors is strategies to combat this. so that's what we advocate for. in addition on our website you can see this, summarizes the kind of strategy that will take and lowering risk factors. again, it's about slowing your cognitive decline, also preventing and setting you up for a better chance to prevent alzheimer's disease. it doesn't guarantee. i think if you're on the path to alzheimer's disease, you may still get alzheimer's disease. this may give you more time with a healthy brain. so this is a chart that's going

to show how alzheimer's progresses. you don't go to bed one night and you're completely healthy and wake up one morning and have alzheimer's disease. alzheimer's disease is a slowly progressing disease that goes over the years, decades even. we now know by studying the biology they have alzheimer's disease at the biological changes occur up to 10 years before any symptoms occur. so as i talked about healthy lifestyle, it is really a middle-age to document how the lifestyles. it's a putting money in your bank for retirement. you need to start thinking about what you are going to face in the 80s and 90s, but she need to do it in 50s and 60s. don't wait until it's too late. do it now. even if you're over, we see benefits to this healthy lifestyles. but that can slow your decline.

we know that the decline and alzheimer's diseases recidivist. that's different. it's not normal what happens. i talked about the changes that occur. here's pictures of living brains. people who have living brains they get a pet scan, the pictures at the top and the bottom you see yellow and red spots, amyloid plaques in a living brain. today we have the ability to look at someone and know who is on the pathway. now each one of these lines represent a biologic change and i'm not going to explain each one. but the far left is someone who's completely healthy and then you can see they get thicker and thicker as you move to the right and the lines get higher and higher. there's a stage where the lines start to grow.

those people who don't have any symptoms at that stage can last for 10 years or more, but they're on the pathway to alzheimer's. now traditionally, drug developers and researchers worked on the dementia stage because they can find patients. they have to wait until those people have symptoms to treat them. those people are already really, really sick. and if i'm trying to treat a disease, i would rather have people at that stage because your chances are better that your drug will get in there earlier. we know from diseases like cancer that prevention strategies are far more effect if the treating someone pretty far down the road. that's what we are dreaming up today. a lot of strategies are focused on prevention side of the disease. and now we have these, we can

start to think about it. this is what's approved today for alzheimer's disease. the first one approved and is no longer available. we really have for drugs in the u.s. the first three are inhibitors from the outside and is well made modulator that's also approved and a combination therapy with two different mechanisms. these drugs work to treat the symptoms of cognitive decline and they work under rants. but as the disease takes over and more and more in the ronstadt, distracts become less and less effect it until they become ineffective. so they don't stop or slow the decline of the disease. in fact, alzheimer's disease is the only disease in the top 10 without a way of slowing the disease. the only one. these are the drugs we have

today. we need better therapies. the attrition rate in drug development on the far right you see the industry average. so the amount of drugs that go into testing come out with about 4% success rate. but if you look at alzheimer's disease, it's a challenge to come up with new drugs. 4.5%. so we really need a lot more shots on goal to have success. we hope as we learn more about the biology of the disease will get better success. so i'm not going to talk about each in the drug pipeline, but i was asked to talk about the pipeline. as a scientist, what excites me about the list was the drugs in the phase one of phase two clinical trials. but these are drugs looking at attacking it from all kinds of different angles. not just taking one approach

which is important scientifically, that will teach us about the disease. also gives us a better chance of success and also hopefully we'll get more than one approved and go back to the idea of a combination. so if we can do that, that would provide better success. this is the phase three. fewer compounds, fewer therapeutic because they have attrition from phase two and phase three. but again, there's a variety of approaches. i'm going to highlight a couple of days just to give you a sense of where things are. the first is from -- [inaudible] this is an anti-emily eric p. it is in phase three. we hope the disease data here at our conference in toronto,

canada. the big scientific conference. but we hope to see some data. it could be the first that would slow the decline of people. the other one is also a biological injectables from the company biogen. the invigorated the whole community last year. and why was it exciting? you know it's a small trial of 150 people. every one of those people had amyloid in their brain. after one year, the people who run the active treatment showed a slower decline as compared to placebo not only under cognitive assessment, but also based on pet scan. believe it or not, the first time the trials were done

through either you are treating people because we now have the tools to do it and that is really exciting because again we are getting these diagnostic tools to help guide the clinical trial. as i said, we have over 5 million americans with alzheimer's disease today and a prevention strategy is not going to help them. we need something to help the symptoms. we have people working. two examples the symptomatic approach similar to the approved drugs going after a different mechanism. so this could provide another treatment, another option for people and maybe provide your outcomes. also, there's a drug that we approved -- that is approved in als and ms.

they are now in clinical trials with application and alzheimer's disease. this has a lot of problems for people dealing with alzheimer's and their caregivers. this is a way to treat the symptom. not just cognitive symptom, but behavioral symptom. so again, attacking the disease from all different types of angles, really trying to bring new therapies forward. that's the way we will attack this disease with better research and that is what is going to stave off this health care crisis. with that, i went to thank you for your attention. if you want to learn more about the alzheimer's association, we are happy to work with anybody. [applause] the mackinac question time. we have a few minutes if anyone has a question that i too ask any of our speakers.

yes, ma'am. >> i guess my question is the status of alzheimer's. i'm going to go into that. and you say it's really diagnosed. what i don't understand is when you say i guess my thought was incorrect, but my mom is 94 years old started dementia -- but without the dementia of some kind 93 years old. otherwise she was fine. the question -- so was that dementia or was that alzheimer's have a missile and? i have no idea. but now seeing my sister going through alzheimer's and really

my sisters wade going through alzheimer's. ingesting, where she's she's going through a big younger age at the age of 75, 76 years old, you see the increase daily. there's nothing else out there that slows down. >> the drugs are proved to not stop or slow the progression. as i said, the only disease is there's no way to stop or slow the progression. >> is there one type of alzheimer's disease or are there other kinds? >> sobers other types of dementia. alzheimer's disease is defined as we learn more about disease, it could be learned that there

are sometimes. but today -- there are multiple types of dementia. that's why it's important to get a really good medical workup from a tough position to understand if the cause is dementia free play something other than alzheimer's disease where, for example, that's medication. they have a weird medical combination and said the dimension could be easily reversed. if properly treated. that is usually rare, but it does happen. so it is important to understand what is actually the cause. so we made that only better treatments, we also need better diagnostics to get a handle and hopefully identify people earlier in the stage of disease

that these new therapies we hope will prevent. >> is usually the family but notices that more than the individual. >> it is typically a loved one double report. but often sometimes the loved ones are also reluctant to report it, too. but hopefully we'll get to the point where we can tell people how important it is. after the affordable care act, everyone can get a cognitive assessment. unfortunately, not everybody takes advantage of that. as the therapies become available. it's also important to recognize that even without new therapies, it is important to know what is going on because people, especially as they grow older or have other health issues.

let's take for example if somebody had diabetes and they were experiencing dementia. at the family kind of brushed that off as normal forgetful, what happens if they forget to take their diabetic medication? they will end up in the hospital. very expensive and unnecessary. but if they had treated it properly, if they actually did have a diagnosis, and maybe that proper care would have prevented a health crisis that was not caused specifically by his alzheimer's with the proper care. so we think the alzheimer's association has great value to your status and diagnosis. >> might expect from pennsylvania. thank you all. we have one of its subsidiaries

working on what is the drug? [inaudible] i did visit with those folks. really unbelievably intelligent and compassionate people. has there ever been a disease like alzheimer's that is this difficult that fits into that. time were literally we are trying to find out how many people are it, but it's impossible to figure out how many people were infected doing it the old-fashioned way. you know, we always solve the problem, don't we? is there another elements that fits that category so folks we always like to build on that foundation. >> if you look at federal funding or other diseases, you can see where their success. let's take hiv/aids. we remember when that was an unsolvable problem. nobody had really effectively

treated a viral disease that nobody really knew how to do it. but with the proper level of funding, that is a manageable disease, a chronic disease, but it's manageable. people are not dying. i worked in pharma before coming to the alzheimer's association. there is always a joke in the hallway that only the hard ones with us. if you buy back 20 years she would see the same thing. whatever problem has not been solved. once you solve it, we just need better research. i think that falls in line. obviously the money has been put into a midgrade brains are drawn to that. >> i notice you had to make a three up there but different

products or drugs to use in dealing with alzheimer's. how does that work. i take omega-3 because everybody says take omega-3. i want to say why you're taking omega-3 out seller and fighting alzheimer's and she might say it's too late. >> does our potential there appears with the hypothesis that omega-3 will be useful for fighting alzheimer's disease. we need to let those trials before. the difference with omega-3 s. so you can get it over the counter and is considered safe. but we don't have proof that it's actually going to be useful. so we are waiting for that. >> not that we have time, but we are going to take the time. bummer question.

>> thank you. i appreciate the panel discussion. you mentioned that the anticipated growth we are going to see from people who have alzheimer's in the future. is there some sort of a dollar figure you can put on what that is going to cost us when they get down to the next 30, 40 years and that occurs? >> biasing testament that alzheimer's disease will make up about one quarter or more of all medicaid spending. so, we believe that if we invested in this country $2 billion a year over the next 10 years in that gilded age treatments that could delay by just five years, that would save the country $245 billion over a

five-year period. so that seems like a pretty good investment. i was never that good at math. that goes back to the comment before about if we put the funding into it, the research into it, there's no guarantee we will solve every problem. but history shows that when we work hard to solve these difficult medical problems, we made great strides. >> i will use lily and as an example because it's a great example. lilly over the past 16 years has continued research on alzheimer's may have brought their alzheimer's drugs to market. if we different than device companies from doing research that we have no set of quality treatment for right now, then

you run the risk of their research stopping on those types of diseases. i think we're at a point now where the discussions on the direction where it scares me that maybe the direction people take you you don't want a company like billy who is maybe on the verge of coming up with something that can treat a disease that will be perhaps the way to solve the long-term care costs in your state. we want to be thoughtful about how we approach this. we have a 90% real rate, 80% fail rate. 12%, getting venture capitalists and getting money to continue to do this is very, very difficult. you don't live disincentive i saw these companies doing research on these types of diseases. you asked that there is other diseases we have treatment for very, very small percentage of mental health disease. there are so many types of mental health disease that are only being mastered the treatments out there. better treatments are needed. we have a lot of diseases for the money doesn't go into it and

it's not treated the same types of populations, that people with significant, significant illness. and so there are so many diseases that still made better treatment, better hopefully cures at some point where we need to keep the money going in. >> join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] i asked the farmers union and chamber of commerce speakers to please speakers to please come up to the speaker cable and please welcome back to the podium, lieutenant governor dan patrick. [applause] >> i'm actually just pinchhitting here. as our speakers,, why was that they said if you don't have a brain are not at risk in every lieutenant governor turned and looked at you. last night why was that? even billy has in its first

meeting turned and looked at you. >> recall that loves. >> called outlaws. the next panel is going to talk about tpp, transpacific partnership, which is i don't want to say controversy, but in both campaigns, a lot of discussion about it. we thought there were some pros and cons on that issue. into her speaker, since we are behind on time, i would ask you to follow those mics. i like to actually look at who's speaking. so i'll sit down there and i can go like that. so with that, as a over b. or overbite? i thought so. with the largest business association the chamber of commerce will be first. [applause] >> well, thank you all very much for inviting me. as you said -- are you awake

now? my name is timmy overby, chamber senior vice president for asia and i am pleased to be here today to share a few observations about what we think about the transpacific partnership. i am here today on behalf of 3 million small and medium-sized companies. also our state and local chambers of commerce as well as large company federal numbers of chamber international federation. the u.s. chamber of commerce is a strong supporter of the transpacific partnership. we believe it is vital to america's commercial and economic interest as well as our geostrategic entries. tpp is critical because economic growth and job creation at home depend upon our ability to be able to sell american goods and services abroad. after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside the borders of america. the 12 tpp countries created a high standard comprehensive

economic trading that makes up about 800 million consumers and represents a nearly 40% of global tvt. so why do straight matters to our country? we believe it comes down to jobs, american jobs. already, one in four manufacturing jobs depend on exports. one in three acres of american farms are planted for consumers overseas. all told, nearly 40 million american jobs depend on support. these numbers could be even higher, but unfortunately the playing field fair trade is not always level and as somebody who spent 20 years of my career working in asia, it is really not level in asia. while our market -- the u.s. market is generally open, our experts face high tariffs and often a thicket of nontariff

barriers in other markets. nobody wants to go into a basketball game during march madness down by a dozen points in the starting tip off. but that is what our farmers, businesses and service providers face every day. these barriers are particularly burdensome for small and medium-sized members. about 300,000 of which actually exported. the good news is america's agreements do a great job leveling the playing field and the results include significantly higher export for new and better jobs. the chamber analyzed these benefits and a report entitled the open door for trade. i'll be passing out copies at the end. some of the highlights from our study said that for america's 20 trade agreement partners right now, this only makes up 6% of the worlds population. but does 20 trade agreement

partners by nearly half of iraq's borders. by carrying down foreign barriers to u.s. export, disagreements have a proven ability to make big markets even on a small economies. so u.s. exports to new trade agreement partners have grown by an average annual 18% in the first five years. the agreement is entered into force. and that is much faster than we see typically from u.s. export growth. the increase trade brought about these agreement supports more than 5 million american jobs, jobs in your state according to our study. trade related jobs also pay well. for instance, manufacturing jobs tied to ask for is a 18% higher than those that are not. now the trade balance is a poor measure of whether or not to trade agreement is working. but we often hear opponents say that trade agreements cause

deficits. from my head, nothing could be further from the truth. the transpacific partnership open asia-pacific dynamic markets to american services. in particular, five of the 11 tpp partners renegotiated with we don't already have fda's list. this will be a bilateral trade agreement with japan, one of the third largest economies in the world and one that we've not had an agreement with good also, vietnam, malaysia, new zealand, we don't have agreements with these countries. it is critical that we open its markets because nations across and around the asia-pacific have not been standing still while we've been negotiating. they been clenching their own free-trade agreements. trade agreementagreement s by their definition are preferential, which means only the parties in the agreement. i want to give you one example.

on january 15th, 2015, the estrella japan went into force and the australians are taking full advantage of it. in a single year that agreement has been enforced, australian export of table grapes has increased tenfold. shelled on that have increased ninefold. frozen shrimp exports up 90%, rolled oats up 40%. these are just a few examples. this is because australia and products and services now have a competitive advantage in japan. for example, today the beef tariff is 38.5%. that is what our cat almond face every day. as part of the australia agreement, they agree to a 19.5% tariff. so suddenly, australian beef looks a lot more competitive.

and i can tell you, they are in that market every day signing multiyear contracts. our cattlemen are losing every day. tpp also addresses some 21st century generation issues. for the first time in any trade agreement, the sanitary by the sanitary chapter includes enforceable obligations which go beyond the wto chapters here for the first time in any agreement, there's a chapter dedicated to small and medium-size companies. for the first time in any agreement, there are binding provisions in the electronic commerce chapter which help ensure the free flow of trade. and also for the first time in any u.s. agreement, there's a chapter specifically designed for state-owned enterprises. also for the first time in any agreement, a provision that requires the country to criminalize trade secret theft. so we see that tpp also provides manufacturers with new

opportunities to increase sales and exports in the growing asia-pacific area. they're eliminating or reducing nontariff barriers across the tpp countries with strong outcomes on disciplines prohibiting local content barriers come export taxes, and transparent and discriminatory regulatory barriers, something i hear about every day from american companies. the tpp sets the strongest will sedate on prohibiting government restrictions on movement of data and localization of i.t. infrastructure. and important for ratio of large companies, but more important for smes. many companies who are using the cloud to sell globally through internet storefronts. tpp also said strong ip rules, particularly when compared to the status quo. but the first-ever provision which requires countries to

criminalize secret theft. that is important to our members to help against foreign theft and counterfeiting. tpp also set stronger than the current status quo customs operations. transparency and anticorruption. one of the things i learned living and working in asia for 20 plus years is that america we tend to have free-trade era trade in our dna. the rest of the world does not. our countries are playing by rules that other countries don't follow unless we signed agreements with them and then critically important we must reinforce them. tpp provides new transparency and fairness and nondiscriminatory roles for government procurement. competition policy and state owned enterprise which levels the playing field and expand their opportunities. it provides binding time-limited transparence state to state

development for both obligations in the tpp to ensure that the commitments can be enforced. but the growing middle class and increase spending our asia there is clearly export opportunities for farmers, ranchers -- excuse me, businesses small, medium and large. according to the east-west center, 28% of u.s. dead and 25% of u.s. service is already go to asia today. there is so much more opportunity. the pie in asia has been exponentially growing, but american slice of that pie has been shrinking. tpp will address that from our perspective. across america, 68% of district congressional districts exported goods valued at $5 million or more goes to asia. 39 american states and at least a quarter of their exports to asia. put another way, or to 2% of u.s. export dependent jobs are

they living to asia. tpp is going to reduce 18,000 terrorists in a dynamic part of the world where things are moving quick way. tpp gives the u.s. a strong hand in helping to write the rules for trade in this important area of the world. it makes us an active player, not a bystander. tpp will affirm and defend america's ties in asia at a time when many trade partners perceive us as pulling back. many of our asian friends have made very clear that they will judge america's commitment to asia or whether or not we ratify tpp. so when ocean, from our perspective the u.s. cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while others set the rules for trade. to create jobs, growth and prosperity that our children need, we must set the agenda. to open foreign markets to american trade goods and services, we urgently need to

ratify tpp. with all of our trade agreements opened it, we must ensure that they are fully enforced. the chamber looks forward to working with your association and i'm happy to answer any questions and i will be passing out a book later and they later and there will be a test. thanks for your patience. [applause] >> men, she is a yellow white lady. you know, we have a lot to be concerned about. now i have a new issue. australia is beating us in sewing table great. i've never heard of that before. dr. johnson, president of the national farmers union. does it always have to be money? anyway, you will have a different view or maybe another view. it is all yours. last night [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you. celebrate. i'm assuming i plan it this way. -- pointed this way. yes, indeed. we do have a different view. i spent most of my life as a farmer in north dakota. i was elected official for a dozen years as the state agricultural commissioner, so my focus is going to be more agriculture. .. we have a long-standing view of being smart about it. i will give you a few pieces of data that may be something to think about. this is a map of the countries. you may have seen that before.

tammy didn't talk specifically about exports to korea. it is instructive for us to look at correia because it was the last major trade agreement they entered into four years ago. if you are talking about trade agreements, they always talk about exports. you rarely hear the word imports. i will talk a little bit about both. the difference between exports and imports is the difference between money going into your bank account or out of your bank account. it is a big deal. exports to correia went up, passenger vehicles on the left, pharmaceuticals, machinery on the right, from 2011-15.

exports are also up, beef is the big one, lemons, it doesn't really matter, they are randomly chosen items chosen by folks with free-trade, that is where these charts came from but they don't even talk about the deficit. the deficit is the difference between exports and imports. if in fact as i have shown you, all our exports to korea, why not? up up up. if imports from correia are going up faster you have a problem. that is what happened with correia. the deficit has doubled in the last four years. if you look specifically at 10 or 11 years in this timeline,

the exporters, that ugly dark green color, the tall bar is imports. what you want to focus on is the red bar on the bottom. that is the difference between the two, the deficit. that line is where the agreement was implemented. what you can take from this chart very clearly is our deficit with correia had been declining. you see an upslope until it hit that line and a pretty steep downslope following implementation of the agreement. is it a cause of the agreement? who knows? this is what the data shows has happened. in advance of the korean agreement, that deficit was going to continue to shrink and create 70,000 new jobs.

what we got was 75 to 90,000 jobs lost because of the increasing deficit. this is designed to show how small agriculture is in the next slide as well. i mostly talk to agricultural audiences, we mostly focus on the good things from trade agreements relatives agriculture. agriculture is a really good thing. we as a rule year over year have surpluses we produce relative to trade. we sell more stuff to the rest of the world relative to agriculture, that is a good thing but a very small thing because agriculture is a small part of the overall economy. the rest is just hemorrhaging in

trade deficits and that is what this chart shows. this goes back 30 years or thereabouts, maybe not 30 years. you can see where the trade agreements and her that spike, the great recession and other things that happen as you trade less, and the deficit improved because this is a fundamental point i want to make. we believe in trade. we think we should be smarter how we do trade. as a country, the goal congress gives is pretty simple, pretty straightforward. it just says we want more trade. that is our unofficial goal. give us more trade. we don't specify net trade. we don't differentiate between

exports and imports which we ought to. the fact of the matter is as you look at our performance in recent time it is actually 40 years of consistent persistent trade deficits, we have a real problem. we haven't really taken any action to deal with it. the difference between the redline and the dark line that looks black there is the red line is the trade balance without agriculture. that is the total economy and if you add agriculture in, you will see the deficit nudges up a little bit. that is the surplui was talking about that agriculture contributes overall to our economic performance or trade. we got a $500 billion deficit,

half $1 trillion every year that we import more stuff relative to export. we believe we ought to have a different charge, the charge ought to be we want to bring back agreements that result on closing balance, imports and exports are relatively balanced. why is that important? that $500 billion deficit converts to a 3% drag on gdp. you know what happened to gdp since the great recession. we are at an average of a hair over 2% growth over the last we 10 years. fairly long expansionary period, most economic metrics pretty poor. that growth is the lowest since world war ii, and a significant reason for the growth being so

low is 3% drag on gdp, direct consequence of the trade deficit. what would happen, what should we do to deal with this issue? most economists will argue the single biggest reason for the deficit is currency manipulation, the predominant currency manipulators in the world are in asia, china by far the biggest. studies have suggested the chinese are responsible for 350 to 370 billion of those $500 billion in deficit, and the single largest reason for currency manipulation for the trade deficit is currency manipulation.

currency manipulation simply defined, when countries intervene in other countries's currency markets for the specific purpose of cheapening their currency and increasing value of hours to gain competitive advantage. it has happened repeatedly, frequently as a part, immediately following the conclusion of trade agreements. we saw it with nafta. not only as soon as the nafta agreement was negotiated, the following year the peso dropped by 50%. some of you remember ross perot with the big ears talking about a giant sucking sound that would be created from nafta, in fact it happened. whether he knew why it was going to happen, who knows? the fact of the matter is it did happen. their currency devalued

significantly and instead of piling all these things or selling all these things to mexico, we purchased a bunch of them. there is a direct relationship that is worth you doing a little math over. our trade negotiators tell us, most economists will come up with a number that every billion dollars in exports is worth 5800 to 6000 jobs. a corollary of that, $1 billion in exports, you increase imports by $1 billion, you lose that many jobs. that is why the politics of this country are mixed up in my view. a lot of folks are seeing exactly this impact on lost

jobs, i already talked about the korean trade agreement. this is the final slide i want to show because my slide just turned yellow. this is a different source of data. what we are looking at here is, this is a measure of wages. what happened in real terms is americans, especially the lower economic rungs, wage values are in real terms declining. that is the problem. that is when you guys start hearing about the impact of trade agreements and that is my concluding slide. i am prepared for questions. >> yellow is the new red. >> we have seen this presentation before somewhere i

think. it is interesting, couldn't resist, i am sorry. this is a serious issue and that is why there is so much controversy, a major issue. questions? >> you mention you would like to be smart about trade agreements. tell me in your mind what that looks like and i would like to hear why that is a feeling that is supported or not supported. >> the number thing -- number one thing we ought to be smart about is being really serious about currency manipulation. every economist in the country talked about the fact that china has been a huge currency manipulator, and yet we do nothing about it, nothing. the tpp, for all of it 6000 plus

pages, has zero enforcement authority relative to currency manipulation. we know this is the single single biggest cause of the trade deficit and yet all that happened was was a side piece negotiated at the last minute and said all the participating countries's finance folks will sit down and talk about currency manipulation, but no ability to do anything to stop a country or to sanction the country for using currency manipulation. this is no small deal, because historically japan has been a major currency manipulator. vietnam last summer after china again reduced the value of its currency, vietnam followed in pursuit. asia did as well.

these are members of tpp. if there is one message you ought to get from this, we need to do something about that. >> quickly following up the response, what do they sanction look like? i am confused, say there is manipulation. what does a sanction look like that makes you feel more comfortable with the trade agreement? >> all you have to do is put some sort of import tariff against the country's imports. that is exactly what the wto provides as a sanction when countries lose a case, here is the amount of the loss caused by errant behavior, however much money, whatever that value is, given the authority, the winning country to extract those tariffs against whatever part of the offending economy they choose.

>> very curious about this. when our dollar devalues, will the reciprocal be true? when i travel to ireland a number of years ago, our dollar was weaker and i spent a lot more money over there. >> absolutely. don't mistake changing values of currency for currency manipulation. currencies in a free-trade environment, and commodities and imports and exports, things that move in trade, currency ought to do the same thing, it should be free-floating. it happens when countries choose to manipulate currency, they deliberately go into our financial markets to buy up dollars, drive the value higher relative to their currency which drops down, and then you get the

artificial imbalance. that is what economies around the world have been arguing relative to chinese behavior, is what needs to be disciplined. okay? >> no surprise we have a difference of opinion here. we do agree currency is the real issue. the chamber doesn't believe a trade agreement is the right vehicle to address it. in a trade negotiation you have ministers of trade. you don't have the finance people. this is the first time to my knowledge that in a multilateral trade deal they did bring in the treasury secretary and finance folks to come up with currency commission. my colleague is right, it is not legally binding or enforceable. all 12 countries agree they would not manipulate their currency for competitive advantage but it is not covered

under resolution. one point i should make is the us treasury department can determine and can call out the country for manipulating currency but they haven't and there are reasons for that. one other issue we should note, this is a reciprocal agreement. so whatever we ask them to do, we ask them to do the same. and long discussions, put currency in and make it binding. our treasury guys were frustrated, and giving up the policy space. congress allowing foreign countries to sanction our fiscal policy. that is what putting binding currency provisions in a trade agreement would do. again we agree currency is a

real issue, whether it is g 20 or the imf or a financial body. >> we never eliminate foreign governments lobbying in congress. it is a good thing -- we should do it for the lobbyist. lobbyists lobbying congress. >> as an american who lived abroad two decades of my career i tell you we play by rules no one else in the world does. your constituents are disadvantaged. and it moves, close to a level playing field. >> if i could make a brief

comment about currency, a real sharp point on the problem, currency manipulation doesn't belong in trade agreements. it belongs with finance ministers or the imf or the world bank. the problem is every one of those guys says it is not our problem. what vehicle do we have in this space to deal with it, for the first time ever a majority of both houses of congress relative to tpp, want currency dealt with in a trade agreement. who knows where the perfect place is? if you don't have it someplace, you don't have binding protocols in place, we are going to talk about this for another 40 years while we continue to see deficits getting ever deeper.

that is a real problem in this country. >> fascinating, thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to turn it over for our meeting to kim, you are up next. >> the conference is going to continue with other business. we will leave it at this point with a quick reminder that all of today's panels from the lieutenant governors association annual meeting are available to watch anytime online in the c-span video library. the justice department with an indictment against seven or raining computer specialists who worked for the islamic revolutionary guard corps charging they were behind cyberattacks on dozens of american banks as they attempted to take control of a small dam in new york. the new york times writing about

the incident, the first time the obama administration has sought action against irani and for a wave of computer attacks in the united states that started in 2011. attorney general lynch made the comment at a press conference, find that@c-span.org. and elsewhere in washington vice president joe biden outlined his position on the supreme court vacancy, called for the confirmation of president obama's pick to fill the vacancy. judge merrick garland. here the vice president's remarks about the nomination process at georgetown university, you are able to watch that at 8:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span. here on c-span2, booktv in prime time tonight with a look at recent books on education starting at 8:00, talking about the battle for room 314, my year of hope and despair at new york city high school followed by the national association of scholars report on reading lists for

incoming college freshmen. at 10:20 eastern and education panel discussion from the tucson festival of books. that is all tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. this weekend join us for the 22nd annual virginia festival of the book in charlottesville starting saturday at noon eastern. programs include author bruce hellman who discusses his book the man who stocked einstein, how not the scientist changed the course of history. saturday evening at 7:00, patricia scott, professor emeritus of women's studies on her book the firebrand and the first lady, portrait of a friendship. eleanor roosevelt, the struggle for social justice. the book explores the relationship between civil rights activist polly murray,

cofounder of the national organization of women and first lady eleanor roosevelt. patricia bell scott speaks with nail irving painter at roosevelt house at new york city at 1:00 p.m. eastern from the virginia festival of the book including george carlin's daughter who talks about her life growing up with the comedian in her book a carlin home companion. sunday night at 9:00, afterwards with historian and the cohan, the making of america's first woman president. miss cohen look that women political leaders and the advances they are making in the political arena. the chair and cofounder of cornell law school's avon global center for women and justice. >> for a woman to be at the head of the most powerful country in the world, most significant enemy at this time, isis, is literally executing women and

girls simply for being women and girls, sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> for this year's student cam contest, students produce documentaries telling the issue they wanted candidates to discuss. students tell us the economy, equality, education and immigration are top issues. thanks to all the students and teachers who competed this year and congratulations to all the winners. one of the top 21 winning entries will air at 6:50 eastern on c-span. the winning entries are available for viewing online at student. the british treasury committee questioned london mayor and conservative member of parliament boris johnson on the future of the united kingdom's membership in the european

union. the uk will hold a referendum june 23rd to determine if the nation will remain in or leave the 28 member e.u.. this is one of many committees in the british house of commons exploring the economic and financial implications of the uk's e.u. membership. mister johnson has announced he supports the campaign to leave the e.u.. he responded to questions on the impact of e.u. on uk employment and the possibility of negotiating free-trade deals following an exit from the e.u.. >> order, order, thank you very much for being here this morning. mister johnson, chancellor, i call you mayor. we used to have -- i suppose i should declare the we know each

other extremely well. used to be in and out of each other a lot of years ago. you represent london. what are london's views? >> i can't give you any particular polling detail but i have heard they are more supportive of remaining in the e.u. than other countries. i don't consider that an impediment to my position which is to favor a change in favor -- >> keeping an eye on the opinion -- >> i believe -- >> you are not aware of the paul showing recent poll showing relatively strong support for remaining in the e.u.. >> that is your move but

national position showing interesting data in favor of leaving and that is what i would say. >> in your professional capacity you are looking also at the financial sector and are you aware of what they say in surveys? >> very interesting, certainly the case that if you look at the survey, you find people like the bank association that tend to be strongly supportive, a couple points need to be entered, supported also of going into the euro to completing single market, disastrous ideas, it is

quite interesting when you dig into these opinions, they are less strongly held than you might suppose and they are wrong. some very distinguished bankers in favor of getting out and i mentioned lloyd's who made a good speech the other day, all of them came out and said they are in favor of us leaving. what was occasionally handled -- how finally balanced they seem to be, they don't believe it will do any damage to london's position in the world's leading

financial center, that is the overwhelming picture. >> are you aware of the anecdotal evidence of your meeting, more thorough work being done to set the views. leading bankers. >> giving some examples, at least three leading bankers. >> whether you are aware of any surveys that have been done. >> i am aware of the just of the surveys, which again as i say, do show a majority in favor -- >> i have two leading surveys in front of me. one is by the center of financial innovation.

leading people in the leading legal profession, banking profession, 80% in favor, you may be right that their views are lightly held and suddenly triggered in other directions. >> i do think actually -- >> and financial innovation on their contact list, getting decidedly weaker support but very strongly -- >> what you are getting in your anecdotal meeting doesn't seem consistent and the fact that you are not aware -- >> aware of the general trust. >> surprising. >> i am aware of the general premise. the same balance of opinion was

heard in the euro, turned out to be disastrous course of action. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. you are hearing about the sort of things -- i am very struck by that. >> got that on the record. what you are very struck by? >> as i say, how shallow the enthusiasm of the european union. >> in your dartmouth speech, you had some analysis. i think before this meeting that we were going to take a close look at what you said recently

about europe. you say, quite british business the e.u. regulation cost 600 million pounds a week. have you taken a look at the methodology of that? >> the most expensive, numb 100 e.u. regulations, may be even higher. 83 billion pounds a year. when you talk about a cost like that, the point you are driving at is what would be saving if you get rid of those regulations, would you contemplate getting rid of those regulations, and into uk law and the point i would make is there is always scope if we get out to

amend and change those regulations in the interest of this country, and as long as we have the 1972 european communities back in the way it is formulated there is absolutely no way we can change any of that. it flows irresistibly onward, every year and every time the e.u. touches some area of law and and areas of law that it affects. that area of law, lawmaking becomes subject to the judicial authority of the european court of justice. >> that is a fundamental problem coming back to 2,500, the point

later. i just want to probe a little more, 600 million pounds a week. you described it as the cost of all regulation. >> having taken a look at europe's own description of the methodology, they are quite reasonable description. >> as i understand it what they have done is look to the government's own impact assessments in order to make their estimates and they are quite conservative estimate of the cost and one of the interesting things about open europe is banking away for a long time, but it is not

euphemistic. >> their own qualifications. >> got a digest of the points they make and that impact assessment. >> are you aware what they have done is at a cost, ignore -- >> i made that clear. >> you are aware of that and if you lay out the costs of the proposal without taking account of the benefits you look at a high figure. >> i intend to. >> you wouldn't want to ignore that there might be some benefits. >> of course not. >> have you had -- >> trying to take the point -- >> ever looks at the costs? >> something interesting to say --

>> have you had a look at the list of costs and benefits? >> i did look at -- open europe themselves, talk about those benefits, 95% of these benefits have not materialized, consideration you might take into account. >> what they say is the full benefits are very difficult to quantify. it is not quite the same thing. what they are doing is making a perfectly reasonable point that there is a heavy cost, a much more broader benefit. a regulation that might reduce

consumer debt. in order to give the electorate a fair balance, at the very least it is important to take a close look at the benefit side and always to ensure the public are aware of adding up the costs. they have said, quote, it is important to know these can bring benefits including trade across a single market, pretty fair-minded and balanced qualification. >> they also say these rules have not been the way they were advertised. and not the single market, it was promised when the whole thing was promised in 1986, the

report submitted by the drumroll of excitement about the birth of the single market-leading to a great period of european growth and dynamism, that did not take place. we did not get the huge expansion of employment in the e.u. or growth in the european union. >> these are all reasonable points. what i am trying is a much narrower -- >> 600 million pounds is very fair when you consider 95% of the benefit. >> you think we can ignore the benefits that are considerable measures. >> since you attach great significance, you should also --

95% of the benefits in europe, the important point -- >> that is not what they say. >> they make clear it may not be quantifiable. >> the important point if i may say so is what you can do about these regulations, they are costly and burdensome, you would concede some sectors of the business hes and the advantage would be that we could amend those regulations. without it you could do nothing. if you look at the stuff -- gm regulations, many directives emanating from brussels, simply because of poor drafting or

whatever, that is the point open europe are making, they are not ideally tailored to the needs. >> are you aware of the exercise undertaken by the government? >> i am. >> you know they struggled to find very many examples but there are some. >> i will give you an example. >> give me an example now. >> might send a list of the areas -- >> only to speed things up. i would like -- i would like to turn to your speech on 22 february, where you say there are these ludicrous rules emanating from the e.u. and a

reason for your decision to leave, one of the rules you cite is, quote, e.u. rule that says you can't recycle a teabag and children under 8 can't blow up balloons. you tell me which e.u. regulation or directives as children under 8 can't blow up balloons. >> the european commission, i will be happy to give you the number of the press release in a moment, adult supervision is required in the case of the use of uninflated balloons by children under 8. not only children in my household, it is absolutely ludicrous -- at the european

level -- >> i have the toy safety directive requirement in front of me, children under 8 asking if the water be placed on packaging, not requiring or for bidden -- >> to be placed on the package. and not prohibiting children from under 8. >> even the european union is hard put to actually prohibit people from blowing up balloons. and recycling teabags. this is a classic example of gold plating. and animal byproducts regulation

of 2002, with milk or meat cannot be recycled. to interpret regulation in 2002 from recycling teabags, that is a classic example in my view, of e.u. legislation, with overzealous british implementation. >> is it not true to say there was any e.u. regulation? for recycling teabags. it would be true to say some countries or councils might be goldplated or some regional

authorities or might have decided to recycle teabag. >> you will readily appreciate animal byproducts regulation of 2002 there would be no escape from the council to institute that prohibition. they are relying on e.u. regulation. i think there is a separate regulation that forbids you from burying your sheep on your own ground. >> we haven't got into that. >> there are myriad of these taken and used by uk officials however well-meaning in such a way as to add greatly to the burden. >> taken and used or misused by british officials on the back of

something from the e.u. which is not something that prohibits people from recycling teabags. it is a misrepresentation to say people are prevented from recycling teabags. >> they are by e.u. legislation. >> it was somehow omitted. >> it was -- about the stockholm syndrome of uk officials who feel obliged to take the opportunity to implement overzealously emanating from the e.u.. that is the whole point. we are more enthusiastic about implementing these regulations than others and take it more seriously. one of the nightmares i have in london, a series -- one of the

big challenges is getting more housing built fast, the e.u. regulation stationed of one kind or another or wherever, slow down the planning process, you have to wonder whether those processes would be so cumbersome, we do relish bureaucracy in this country. >> chasing line of fire from the speech attacking e.u. and actions of the uk officials which cause the problem, e.u. regulation did not -- you your self are saying -- >> i must respect -- without the animal byproducts regulation to that, there will be no escape -- >> other people can form their

own view of that. you say -- i got your book here, lend me your ears. in that, you say there really is european legislation on the weight, dimensions and composition, is that -- tell me where that -- >> i am just trying -- that was to do with the shipment of corpses across frontiers, i seem to remember there were various british -- very successful funeral -- it was key to have some sort of european provision on this. the result was a euro coffin that i came up with or regulations run maximum and

minimum but i don't believe it was remotely necessary for the safe and successful operation of a single market. it is widely misunderstood. free-trade across europe would have continued unimpeded without legislation on the size and shape of the euro. they have to change those dimensions radically since everybody in this country started getting fatter. >> actually it is not a e.u. regulation at all, is it? >> it is a long time since i studied this. more than 20 years ago. this is something i remember arose from a brussels institution. >> you wrote it in your book 20 years ago. in fact, you are defending it

now. the transfer -- in there, there is no reference to it. nor is there any e.u. legislation, nor is the uk a signatory. the story is -- i am -- >> your imagination. >> you are in error but it is a long time since i looked at it. there was a question about the maximum or minimum of coffin sizes. >> there was legislation and it was e.u.. >> that is my memory. >> to take a look. they require a bit of qualification to understand and a reasoned man would say it is

misrepresented -- >> you failed utterly. in your experiment. >> that is a judgment. do you think on reflection, perhaps you don't, it might be prudent, in the interests of generating a strong case that you add qualification, the time -- >> how strongly i feel about it, there is a great deal of effort being made to deprecate the views of those who think we should lead, to undermine their point of view and say everything we say about the e.u. -- >> what has that got to do with it? >> you asked me if i want to recount -- let me take -- >> i have asked you to qualify

and provide the balanced view in your own interests, and in one way or another in that case, but because of the language and 1-sided description is an exaggeration to the point of misrepresentation. >> i don't agree with that. let me explain why i feel so strongly about this. the reason i mentioned the cab dimensions we wanted to have in london to minimize death of cyclists, an organization of impacts produced a written article on their website which has been widely read which was untrue and the e.u. agreed

unanimously, protect cyclists and having studied, as you have too, this challenge is completely untrue. 213015 from memory, did indeed attempt to modify the dimensions. mainly from aerodynamic point of view. there was change but got nowhere near what we needed in terms of lowering the driver and getting the windows big enough. and vulnerable road users. there were representations made

to amend the directive, we tried to do that. the truck industries in france and sweden thought -- can't get through type approval for dimensions for cabs, has been passed in this country to the european union. only happened a few years after 2012. i can't do it. the department of transport can't do it. we can't make essential changes to dimensions of trunk cabs in our country that would save the lives of cyclists. reading stuff from the remaining camp, i think they should get their facts straight. this is something i tried very hard to make a difference on in

london and we campaigned hard to make cycling safer. we have an opportunity to have a new regime for truck cabs in our city which would save female cyclists. it is a great shame that in the interests of propaganda, what we try to do is being misrepresented by the campaign. it has been handed over to brussels. >> we are trying to get beyond misrepresentation on both sides. with respect to claims -- you sound surprised. >> every question being asked of you is in that spirit. with respect to the regulation you are just referring to, the uk would have no say on truck

safety standards and therefore your ability to influence e.u. trucks when they come to the uk unless you banned them would be severely limited. is that a restraint of trade? >> no, it would be a sensible measure. >> you would ban lorries or trucks that don't go to your standards? perhaps to the benefit of -- already pioneering the world's first safe lori zone in that area and already instituting various requirements or mirrors and all sorts of ways with blind spots and ways we can minimize the risks to vulrable road use. this is a further step that is technologically possible. basically what you do is get a

bus like, they look fantastic, they save lives. you can't do it at the moment because it is blocked in brussels. >> blocked by one country in fact. >> either france or sweden. >> the principal you seem to be arguing for is a form of standardized regulation. have i not got that right? >> have got it right. what i am onto before is ability of londoners -- that is in the nature of a safer lori zone. if i may make comparison. >> if it would be deleterious -- >> what you could do is it would

stimulate markets for better and safer cabs. it would be a great thing and it would save lives. >> move it on -- >> mister chairman, i am on your side. i am a supporter of the e.u.. we can assume the french, i assume they don't wish to go around cyclists particularly. it could be successful across europe. if we had asked -- >> the problem if i could be frank about it, they have been reluctant to move as fast as they might because they haven't got their truck cabs in the state of evolution to take advantage of this market. other firms have. the french have been using this position, the french have been

using their position to block it. if we took back control, we would be able to make the streets safer. >> if i could move on to the laws made in the uk, the e.u. the point of teabags, taken to the european court, there is inevitably because of the e.u. not because of councils a need to implement accurately -- that is the issue of the percentage of uk law that comes from e.u. law, 15%, 50%, two thirds, came

up with even higher. i wonder if you could talk about how to calculate this forward. >> the house of commons library produced another series of calculations. we heard various authorities, about 50%, denies he ever made, they now say the things the come out yesterday or today, it is 59% or 60%, you have to roll together, justify the directives but also the regulations of instruments of one kind or another and they are numerous.

as soon as e.u. law touches, it becomes something else by the procedure. .. michael dugan, you don't know who he is? >> i'm sorry. i'm not only with his work before today but look, there are varying figures. the kennedy tonight is it is decreasing and not to be eliminated. >> so you're very happy with the figure, i think revenue figure. dougan again worries that when

we prepare eu laws are laws which govern on legislative measures with legislative measures and he feels this is an accurate comparing apples to pairs and you would have to include all sorts of regulatio regulations. i wonder if you agree with if you agree with that of what do you think once again he's arguing speak with a don't know what wellpoint, what his perspective is. my impression certainly is, it's as mayor of london on mondays at the volume of amount of stuff i come across every day it seems to have an eu origin, whether public procurement rules which they unlike so many other european countries or whether it's rules about the networks that affected the division of

crossrail tunnel, whatever happens to be. this awful lot of the stuff and it seems uninterruptible at the moment. >> rules inevitably -- it is said that is essential not the working of the single market because otherwise they would do what they like. do you think that it is possible to have a area without the european court of justice? >> yes. yes, i did and i'm very grateful you raised that point because i think people don't understand. 70% of our trade is with, outside the eu. we don't have any free trade agreement at all. but of the free trade areas that are around the world, nafta, not a single one tries to imitate this anachronistic, old-fashioned system devised by

idealistic french bureaucrats after the war of a single judicial approach. nobody else does that and it is very striking that unemployment in the eu is roughly double that of the other free trade zones that i mentioned. growth is much, much lower. i invite the committee to speculate as to whether this is associated with the volume and the rigidity and the irreversibility of eu law. and i think it's a system that come every night but rather, we did talk about the ecj. reminds me rather of how the computer in 2001 that is basically become autonomous. i think they are bizarre. >> though occasionally they are in our interest. i'm thinking particularly of the

location -- were it was ruled as remember it the ecj didn't have the authorities to make regulation. it was on the part of the ecb to make the regulation but it did go in our favor. >> yes. i agree with that. on the other hand, and it's never been my view the single currency was necessary. >> no, but in terms of the possibility for the city of london, they allowed the city to carry on. whereas the ecb was trying to stop it. we do occasionally when, and do you think the winds that make it are sufficiently important to outweigh the losses that we suffer and to undermine a democracy that is implicit in

having a super national courts because that is the fundamental question. and might have to that is the balance is now switched against. i think 20 years ago many of us would have said that the balance was in favor. let me give you a couple of examples where thinking today particularly about how to combat terrorism and the threat that poses to our societies. i've seen various people quoted as saying remain in the u.s. essential for our security. i think it's important to put a countervailing point, which is the are some ways now which the european court of justice is against our ability to control our borders in the way we want to entity to maintain proper citizens. you look at the case of the need to try to smuggle some cards to

prison. we couldn't keep order, not because the strength of the court of human rights but because of the european court in luxembourg which is not able to adjudicate on the charter of fundamental human rights. you have also seen the european court of justice in luxembourg saying that governments, states can't retain data, mobile phone data that is very often a center for monitoring potential terrorists. now, what has that got to do with completing the interval market works what has that got to do with -- actually nothing. it is morphing into a political union of any kind i think is longer on balance in our interests. and i think your point about the protections of the city, i think the city would continue to

flourish outside the eu, flourish mightily. i remember the threat to euro clearing was mentioned at the time of the creation of the euro. and everybody said that would be migrated away from us. and that did not happen. but simply because the concentration of talent, but critical mass is here in london, also for reasons that have nothing to do with eu. >> it's important the point you make on the family case because not only were we promise charter funding rights would not apply in united kingdom, but it was attended achieved that. and the court tried to keep it secret to save themselves from the shame of having interfered directly in uk criminal law rather than national single market. i think you're absolutely right about. it is no longer a sacrifice we are making.

and even outside the single market it's not true that wga has systems which are almost invariably followed by member states when there are breaches spirit of course. terrace joe haddock coming out across the world. you are seeing more and more free trade deals done which involve virtually zero terrorists. you look at the u.s.-australia deal recently, terrorists removed in 90% of all kinds. even then before the deal was done they were running a 4.3%. there is a huge opportunity now for close to get out from under an incredibly prescriptive over bureaucratic system that is trying to create a single policy out of many. and strike a future. >> you mentioned the figure of

89%, the -- 59%. could you describe what it is, in fact, that is being, how the number is -- >> certainly. it is, first of all you say it's hot from the press. what are you reading from? >> the amount of legislation from europe, it is an update by the house of commons library of the figure that they gave. >> and the date? >> eighth of march. sorry. >> 2014. but that you were you probably didn't know that. >> i am so sorry. >> that's all right. don't worry. >> my enthusiastic -- 2014, however, doesn't seem to me to be that long ago. >> what is this 59% composed of? >> this is composed of a number

of eu regulations and eu related statutory instruments, i believe. >> you really don't exactly come you are illustrating exactly, you come out with a figure which you claim to be hot from the press but which, in fact, you don't know what it consists of. in fact, speak if they consist of regulations, directives and decisions. decisions they relate to an individual firm decision. there are thousand of those relating to individual firms. >> and it makes clear the same house of commons -- >> are you disputing the veracity of the house of commons because fortunately i do the asking at these meetings. the conclusion of the note on this reads all measurements, it's possible to justify between

15-55% or thereabouts. >> 59%. >> i'm reading the note, depending on what is included or excluded for the calculation. >> well look, whether it's 59% or 55% it is an awful lot. >> fifteen was the range offered by the house of commons. what i'm trying to -- >> what i tried to explain -- >> while that might be possible to put together a case for 55459%, it's actually important also if you want to try to acquire credibility in this debate, say there's a vast range depending how you measure this, and that may be as low as 15%. >> that is if you look solely at directed indecision. if you add in statutory instruments, the figure rapidly expands. since statutory instruments have affected in this country and

since they form part of the corpus of european law, since they are just as by the european court of justice it seems entirely right that we should look at the figure. and it is a huge figure. i think most people in this debate will conclude that there is too much stuff, legislation, emanating from the eu which we can neither control nor repeal. that is the critical point. once it promulgates it cannot be reversed. >> i think we have what we need to have on the extent to which we can attach veracity figures like 55509, or for that matter 15%. >> good morning. you said leading would cause the least some business uncertainty while importing the government for several years in a crisis of negotiating new arrangements.

so the first -- how long do you think the spirit of unsettling would last? >> the first point to make is i do think it's important to hold debate not to blame every problem in this country on the eu. and i don't. i think -- >> that's not what -- how long of a period of uncertainty? >> i don't think it need last very long. in fact, i don't think there need to be appeared of uncertainty at all, when you consider that, i think look, the best analogy i can come up with this whole debate is, if i may just finish, is the millennium bug, the y2k alarmism. people said the planes would fall from the sky and that computers would crash and the economy would tank by 5%. nothing of the kind took place

but i think there's a great deal of -- apiece as i recall set out two sets of arguments, pro and con. and it concluded i remember my sync it with absolute to fear from leaving the eu. and that is coming that is the truth. >> those were your words. we've taken instruments from a number of people including java used to be our ambassador in brussels. he says that the negotiations would basically have three parts. after we triggered article 50 we would have negotiation which might last for two years on our arrangements for leaving. we would then have a negotiation about our future relationship with the eu. and in addition to that we have 50 free trade negotiations to undertake. now, you've also said that the

people of europe do not vote as one, think is one, or speak as one. so how long do you think it would take the other 27 member states to establish what their negotiating position is going to be? >> i think one of the most interesting things about this debate is the sheer sort of negativity about our potential to do these deals. i think we've become infantilized by the fact that the whole responsibly of this is now conferred upon the commission. they don't have, suspicion eu, sufficient uk representatives to do it. bear in mind we already have an extensive trading relationships. we are already, we've been in the thing for 44 years. our relationship with the eu is already very well developed. it doesn't seem to be that it

would be very hard to strike, to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed. i don't think will be necessary to invoke article 50. i don't see why that would be the case. the u.s.-australia deal i just mentioned, for instance, took only two years. i think george osborne in fright when he says we wanted a british deal and a british deal represents an opportunity to get free trade with european partners based very large on existing arrangements. i don't see why that should be the only way. >> nobody is suggesting that we -- that would be absurd. the question i'm asking you about now is the period of uncertainty. you said rather a number of different things about what you think it should look like. my question to you is do you think the other 27 member states

have and a great picture about what the relationship they want would be with the uk? >> i do get added think, look, they are not having a debate in isolation in this country but i think everybody can see a cross of the eu what is happening and i think, and i think that people are already thinking about this and preparing for how they our friends and partners would want to take things forward. and i think that it would be overwhelmingly in their interest to do free trade deals as rapidly as possible, and many of them as you know have quite substantial trade balances in their favor with us. they would want to protect their businesses, industry. i think the uk is 15% of exports from the rest of the eu.

it's a huge chunk of their market. >> actually 10%. >> i defer to your -- my information is that it is 16. i'm happy -- >> 60% of the gdp. >> i'm happy to look at the figures for britain would. if you look at -- bretton woods. 27 billion net, pounds, that is a very substantial incentive for the largest and most -- to strike a deal very fast that was advantageous to -- >> but do you think the interests of the german economy and what they would want from the deal are the same as what, for example, the greeks would want from the deal? >> i think that they would be a variety of interests that people would want. obvious at the moment we have free trade across the eu began

to think it would want to protect that as far as they possibly could. >> of course. of course, people would want to protect that as far as they could but in striking a deal do you think that the interests of the german economy and the greek economy are the same and that they could save immediately that they would have the same negotiating position and it would be no period of uncertainty? >> i think you would have to take of you about whether or not you are going to strike an agreement with the eu as a whole. don't forget, the eu retains competence for international trade negotiations, even on bretton woods if we do that. so i imagine that the commission would be negotiated on behalf of both the greeks and the germans at the same time. and i believe that it would be possible to do a deal very rapidly indeed based on the

existing patterns of trade. that is what people would want to -- >> that's not how the process works. the council of ministers gives the commission the negotiating mandate pics of the council of ministers initially have to have a discussion to agree the negotiating mandate for the commission to actually do the practical negotiating. and i'm asking you about whether the eu member states on the council might not take some time to grieve with negotiating the matter speak with i don't think so because the overwhelming interest of european economy is indeed, several of the most powerful european economies is to get such a deal done as fast as probable. i think the eu has had already because of the euro crisis, the problems they have had, i think they would want above all to minimize uncertainty. >> the eu crisis is obviously

caused by the fact that structure and interest of the german and the greek economy are quite different i think you're being far to optimistic. could ask you a question -- can ask you another question about the uk negotiating position? t. want to have access to the single market? >> the single market is a term that i think is increasingly widely misunderstood. and what we mean by the single market it seems to me is the whole corpus of european law, as they say, adjudicated by the european court of justice. in that sense it comprises everything from animal hygiene byproducts regulations to size of lorry cabs to the right of, the rights of prisoners in uk prisons. and whether or not we should be able to deport them. all these things are now just as

simple by luxembourg. my view is we should get out from under that system and have a free trade arrangement that continue to get access to uk goods and services on the european continent. and that is what it's all about. if you look -- >> that's very helpful, because on the sixth of march he gave the impression that you want a deal like that deal the swiss have. on the 11th of march you gave -- >> i don't know who took that depression but my view -- >> that's what you said on the sixth of march. and on the 11th of march you said you wanted to be like the canadians. >> well i think -- as i said earlier, i want a deal for britain. and i think thatha