>> hillary clinton is on the camping trip today with massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. but to make their first public appearance together since senator warner endorsed the former secretary of state. we will have a five-foot at 10:30 a.m. eastern from ohio on c-span. >> the hard-fought 2016 primary season is over with historic conventions to follow this summer. watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party, and the first nonpolitician in several decades. watch live on c-span, listen on

the c-span radio app or get video on demand at c-span.org. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span beginning monday jul july 18. >> on july 1, 1976, the smithsonian's national air and space museum opened its doors to the public with president gerald ford on hand for the dedication. friday marks the 40th anniversary at american history tvs live coverage starts at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we will see one of the kind aviation and space artifacts including the spirit of st. louis and the apollo lunar module plus life events. learn more as we talk with its director, museum curator and chair of the museums space history department. you can join the conversation and we will be taking your phone calls and e-mails. the 40th anniversary live

friday evening beginning at six eastern on c-span3's american history tv. >> a look of the work of public diplomacy and conflict zones with civilians who worked on the front lines. they sure this doesn't talk about the need for more training and cooperation among diplomats and military. the truman center for national policy and the truman national security project cohosted a discussion. >> all right, everybody. we are ready to get started. please join me in welcoming to the stage truman and rose. [applause] >> i'll pay you later for that

one. for much of our lifetime southern africa has been treated and described as a charity case. for governments a problem to be managed, for businesses a troublesome but rich source of natural resources, and for the general public a continent, sometimes a country, of crisis and hunger. blow and hunger. while that misperception is only result begun to change in the united states a technologist and not window windows in africa wao time in defining their own world. spinning at businesses and new technologies that are breaking ground in africa and beyond. last year the continent was home to six of the world's 12 fastest growing economies in the world's fastest-growing middle class. was systemic barriers like corruption, poor infrastructure and is matched workforce still remain, the hype around the con is going to be brought together grateful to explore what innovation means for the future and why people in the united states should care. today with the privilege of

hearing from three distinguished panelists who i will briefly introduce and then for my college get to the fun part but for scraps i can invite him onto the stage. [applause] >> trying to avoid the awkwardness of the single person standing. first we have jonathan gorman, who is an investor and advised by merely working with businesses with high growth potential in emerging markets. previously he served as partner and director of the corporate practices and also authored a book called success in africa about the ceos of doing business on the continent. next we have carolyn campbell who is a managing director and a founding partner of emerging capital partners which is a leading private equity firm focused on africa.

it has stakes in everything from education, media and internet companies to the famous kenyan coffee chain chophouse elevate take a second to say thank you for that. john is the head senior fellow and cofounder and ceo of audience intelligence company. he is perhaps best known for founding africa, and has spent the last decade serving as a data scientist and consultant to global companies and organizations in parts of the u.s. government. and on please demand is over to truman, director, rob. rob is the african managing editor for the oxford business group and an adviser to an africa focused corporate data stored. given the expertise in this group we are in for a very interesting conversation on the waste no more of your time, and welcome the panel to begin. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks very much, rose. it's very exciting i think we can all agree we are talking about africa now after several hours, finally the continent is giving some overdue recognition today. i hope everybody has had their cup of coffee for the afghan because were hoping for a very lively discussion. if you haven' have an agony, pug get some know. i believe the beans are actually from africa. it's a dramatic as well. technology survey looks as though, as rose mentioned, it has played a central role in africa's recent growth spurt, whether it's boosting remittances come improving financial inclusion, supporting teachers, farmers and whether you're looking at nairobi or lycos come you can find plenty of examples of success stories. all of these were involved in things from video streaming to

election monitoring the e-commerce. but the big question is how these technologies actually impacted the daily lives of everyday citizens. what are the constraints of limiting their impact on development across the continent? equal importantly what role is to you in plain sight in the public sector private sector in terms of helping to leverage technology for prosperity? so with decades of experience we've got a great panel here with carrie lynn and the two johns. they've got plenty to send us issues i'm going to stop talking here and go ahead and get started. we've got a lot of ground to cover. is to get things that i will start things off with a couple of questions they will open it up to the q&a from the audience later on. the first question i would like to ask all of you in turn, and jonathan we can start with you, is to what extent do tech programs, starters, tech

companies and initiatives actually play a positive role in encouraging development? to what extent have we seen that concretely? we have heard a lot of hype but is it translating into action on the ground? >> from a commercial perspective i think there is a lot of high. i think there's a lot of reality. let's dispense with the hype. it's clear the table first. there is an abundance of development, don't excitement around technologies investing. that excitement is expressed not only a lot of hyperbole in speech but also in money that i perceive is going sometimes towards programs that are not sustainable and certainly not commercially viable. and in some cases as a result strong talent away from more lasting, commercially viable investments. i think you also see sort of a proliferation, for example, of

incubators around the continent which in my view, is probably a little overwrought. there are a few they did a great work. a lot that exist, to my mind, on fumes. so i think there is a certainly room to call that effort. but there really isn't there, that there are an extraordinary of innovation going on in africa that now is giving the capital it needs both and some domestic sources but significantly from international sources, including silicon valley now. and to our innovations coming from africa telefonica when the only active africa but impact around the world. one of the things we thought about is, home-grown technology coming out from africa. there certainly is in the area internet security, in terms of safety and security, terms of

open source software. and there is i would say a small but growing set of additional technologies. there's a real reality around that technology. you asked about the impact. i believe it to others to discuss the development and backs on no longer i am no longer much of a growing developer. as i think some of the other panelists might concur with, to me that's ultimately the most sustainable and compelling in fact there is, the creation of jobs and productivity and profitability that can be extended over a broader base. we can get more into some of the technologies that are doing that. >> you've been involved in much of this sort of on the front lines innocents getting involved with app development in places like uganda. are you saying that sort of

proliferation of commercial opportunities as a result of these sorts of developments? >> now. from my perspective because been job creation. creating sustainable opportunities for employment. and so i look at this sort of like growing tech sector across the continent, growing incubators that are sometimes donors supported. the benefit that i see is that these are jobs that are being created locally by local entrepreneurs who are employing local talent, and because they can can survive, they are truly sustainable. these are jobs that will not go away when some organization decides people its funding from the region. and so that's how i've always looked at it. it's never really been about some of the other things that

occur in the sector but it's just about how do we create opportunities for the people that are that are talented, but a very self-motivated, et cetera. the other think i was good to mention, you touched upon i think is a second ago is the opportunity for african technologist and technologies to for support global demands. and so the company that i start in uganda, i moved there in 2008 and it's still there, still doing well. we just sort of an incubator/working space, but from day one when a business model. we have tried to encourage other people to adopt which we service companies with our talent that is there in the space. and so this is a space called -- and so now with my new ventures

in the states i can outsource work to my team in uganda, software development, data entry, data validation. it's actually been quite economical and sort of set, an opportunity to expect when i started the company in 2008. i didn't expect then that i was to be doing business with my team they are so many years later. so it's been exciting. >> you guys get involved oftentimes a lot more established firms and sometimes it's worth remind folks that tech is not just nibble started in incubators but also much bigger companies as well and virgin capital partners has stakes in things like isps and internet companies and telecom providers.

to what extent are using this excitement over technology also point out on the grand scale with these bigger companies? >> yes, three dozen small investment, some starters, remains as you mentioned which is highly competitive industry but you look at flows between south africa and zimbabwe. we've invested on her own balance sheet not with our funds in that business. we've looked at the data centers out of those all sorted on the fringes of will be done but we would have done and we've made over 60 investment and sold 34 of them, is written three sort of the technology in ways. the first one was gsm, 2% of the continent had any sort of conductivity and we did that from 2000 that wasn't easy fund to invest and to exit and make money on. that was easy. in the second wave we have done was the cable companies.

so the major shift for africa was the landing of the submarine cables. you have three big ones come to the west, three big ones, to the right and that allow them to enter the world of broadband internet. everything we do. so they want to be connected in their homes to high speed internet and go outside and have 4g. everybody has two or three phones. we are in the cable business, the pay-tv business and the broadband internet business in kenya which were expanded in east africa. and then the third one is the cellular towers. and 2011 we bought a company that had 177 cellular towers under management. you have to get into the terrestrial, the center of the country. you land in nigeria, you have to get into legos and a big cities for the real change to our corporate you have to supplement that with satellite. at our cable company also has a

direct to home part two as well just so you're coming everybody. away to the company since 2011 from 727 hours, to $22,000. that's pretty high rate of growth for a company in a small about of time. so what happened on the backbone of all this conductivity? we have a financial services company, and we bought six remote licenses in place like chad, togo, and i was are exciting but we didn't buy them for this country. we bought these licenses been building into bigger countries and make a banking platform. if all probably heard of eco-bank. we created the model. without tougher we acquired a group that ivory coast, senegal and the other countries for the up the coast. but how do you build the output you enough but in the brick-and-mortar banks we have in the u.s. that's not a viable solution.

there is a bug infrastructure for that but the mobile telephone and a mobile banking products has really enabled our growth, and the company has grown exponentially. i think it grew its net banking assets in like 10 times. so the back of the real conductivity and the real penetration of the entire continent for all these forms of ict, we have a lot of businesses that are spawned by that kind of conductivity. i can't think of any businesses that are. that requires conductivity. spewing i think you raise an interesting point about how africa has really changed over the past 15, 16 years in terms of going from 1% mobile penetration to 80 something.

basically the population of the u.s. times to has gotten mobile phones over the past decade and a half. and africa which is pretty impressive. the cable conductivity to international cable networks, but you touched upon the importance of bringing come you've got all this gateway conductivity. so they have access to terabytes and terabytes of internet connectivity but getting it to the inside of the country, the other countries is the challenge. i wanted to ask all of you, what our the challenges that if you're a tech startup company in africa you have to deal with? more importantly from the pages government, u.s. private sector perspective what do we do to help alleviate some of those concerns? >> i'll leave it to someone who has a start to talk about the challenges that they have faced, but i will take up two things

around capital and conductivity. i'm sure whatever else on and licenses with that will. i do think especially in the short term, american source of capital are quite valuable, particularly of interstate all the way from seed to venture, getting companies ready for by a. that's something particularly useful in the current phase. for a variety of reasons. i don't believe in investing without domestic capital alongside. it's in important improving point. but for a variety of reasons african capitalism mobilizes around soft technology and around major, so both software and venture are just very new spaces are african capital. giving them a the return of confidence of major global

technology investors and major particularly software investors is a big boon and allowing them to come alongside is a think a significant play in the next several years for america. and, frankly, talking to largely an audience of public servants, phenomenal differentiator between the u.s. and any of our competitors regional power. because there is no one to compete with used in terms of a no doubt about how to invest in that of the fluidity of our capital. if you think about where europe is today and where -- certainly london which has a source of capital would face a lot of challenges in the next couple of years in africa. across all forms of capital but particularly on future. the chinese are quite competitive in the space but their little late to the game. the u.s. brand around venture

capital, it can't be rivaled. the opportunity to establish a presence in the comments on topics that a fight interest not only to population but especially to governments is significant as opposed to, let's say, i may be contrary but infrastructure capital of power. our africa looms large in the current administration. may be pulled in the upper section for whatever reasons we a nation short on capital. we don't have the money to live on the infrastructure capital. we have plenty of venture capital. that's why. so that's one. i can turn to conductivity in a moment but i think i've spoken my moment to let me ask jon to take on. >> i totally agree. survey building a company from almost any country in africa, your number one enemy is the brownouts and the blackouts. but i think what would be more

useful and but will get more capital flow into the continent is either intermediaries in the financial sector to provide some visibility into diligence on the companies that are being invested in, or public sector counterparts that could help facilitate that process. the number one reason why that isn't work out for going into the continent is the lack of confidence in western investors about what could happen after the capital gets there. there's nothing they can do and there's not a lot of resources out there to do what's called discovery and find out what's going on. it's still a huge problem. haven't seen very many solutions, sort of pop-up in that space. and until that happens it's still going to be the slow trickle of capital to the continent that jonathan spoke about. >> legal integrated with reforms to protect investors are kind of

the crucial aspect for boosting u.s. investment, u.s. participation. >> yeah, nestled think from a policy perspective, i was reading something the other day about this talk of finally african union for at least for traveling within inch pan african travel. i would like to see something like that for the private sector to do business with one kind of like overarching entity and then let that indicate deal with the intricacies of all the various countries, domains across the continent. >> you speak about domestic capital which is her interest because our last two funds have had increasing participation, particularly from pension funds and nigerian pension funds and rock and banks. they have have a lot of money. peck canyon pension funds have a lot of money and want to invest

it, so what would be very useful is if someone gave them, even if they could come here and hang out at calpers for new york state, reserve fund or if someone were to go there and explained how does this work. her first investor conference, our lovely pension fund team has said where's our money? we invested last year. we haven't had a return involvement and we've had to say the j. curve, it's going to take five, 10 years before you get any money back. it's expensive up front. that took years. that one tutorial did not work. they were upset. they're coming into cannot seven years later to our fourth fund but i don't know, even our pension funds of the is our very thinly staffed. that's one thing i would think a. and for the venture polls, you do have a new class of african billionaires, and she mentioned -- day one of our biggest investors, a billionaibillionai re on south africa put a lot of

money into two of our funds. but they are spawning their own venture capital funds and every day i read about a new tech fund our venture fund or something to it would be great if we could team up. so your silicon valley investor and your african comment and for my perspective what do we need besides growth and energy a lack of brownouts, we need to business plans. we need to look at companies, if the business and -- business plan is the kind of shoddy with a dream, no one is at testing it. they give you some real expertise from the valley of how do you make a business plan, how do so to an investor and how does that go forward. >> in terms of building up that capacity, one of the hot topics in fact is entrepreneurship, particularly in terms of giving you the opportunity to pay their own way, that i would rely on the public sector that had graciously did for employment and things like that at all these positive externalities

that brings about. is a better a role here for will add you as capital f. abuse government to encourage entrepreneurship? if so what capacity building schemes can help that? >> so perhaps misguidedly i take a dim view of use of government teaching entrepreneurship to anyone else. that's not, that's not even necessarily a knock on government or even a public service. just understanding that you're able to translate that into things you do everyday. so the models i've seen out of the public sector, early within the private sector i do see that what we just spoke about but as i say the audience is largely public service. there's a powerful role. i know this wasn't quite on question but exactly supporting and enabling environment,

particularly -- innovation. again the u.s. brand for venture capital is long, enabling environment, innovation regulation is a very strong. the american government is credible on the topic. more credible may depend on some topics of which we proper advice. i would think that he is a strong opportunity for the public sector. the other, you know, it's going to talk a little bit about providing funds for partial credit guarantees and other backstops like that for innovation but i frankly have i don't know that i've seen the data that tells me that's credible, it may be in the us has done in the past that put out to capable fund managers and i will let, again i think carolyn may have something to

say about the capability as an investor. to our american countries have done that, developed and financed institutions. again, this enabling environment for innovation is very much missing. it very much open a moment because those laws are being written right now. sometimes being written out of fear. there's a lot of legislation holding david within individual countries of ensuring, of intellectual properties with the absence of laws that undermine innovation. i think the u.s. government opportunity to support sound innovation policy, to be most obvious strong point forward. >> jon, you've been involved in this a lot particularly now that you were saying one of your ventures, been accused of sort of an outsourcing destination for work. to what extent are you saying these kinds of entrepreneurial initiatives take off and oman

young students and recent graduates and things like that? >> well, i think very much so. it's absolutely an area of interest for them but to just touch upon the last question, a few years ago i was part of a partnership of the is department of state who i had a small fun. i was investing in africa technology companies, and we forged a partnership where they can invest because of the nature of the state department but they could support and enable this program would whip around the continent, and thus partnership allowed me to discover a number of companies. they got the benefit of sort of supporting entrepreneurship at the grassroots level, and it was very successful. so we funded 16 companies out of that program, and i mean, it's not great conversion but two of

those companies still exists. one of them now has about 20 people. we invest in very small amounts of money, but in about $5000 specifically because of that partnership. and they have just skyrocketed. it's been absolutely great. and another what is a company in kenya which is not doing quite as well but still there, still doing well, still very relevant. so i think that's absolutely the way i would like to see our public dollars supporting african development. it's just like reagan we support what's working and how can we accelerate it and not sort of get in the way of what happens after that. >> another strength we have, i love these strength things, mentioned in terms of venture capital in california is our business goals and how we form the next generation of business people in the u.s.

we have sent six analysts to harvard business school that have worked with us when you go to africa, any other business schools across the u.s., those are your next generation entrepreneurs. if there was something to do with them to, i don't know, explain to them a how the backdp works, i think there is a natural affinity between the us in africa that doesn't exist between any of the regions. you see the east asian or the asian sovereign investors, they will find infrastructure. the u.s. isn't. but they dollars and the long capital will come from other places probably. but you see, we love africa and they love us. the reason it's different than a mercantile region that is inspired when you think of the european african relationship. we want to just because we want to the french are going to do

business. that is not even hidden is the main motivation. she extent we can form links with these young students that come your and you're probably already have business models and starting businesses, we could really influence policy that way because they are going to go back to their home countries, they will not to raise money from the valley but they might not know what to ask for from the home governments in terms of what they need as back up to the businesses, whether it's a cable company, unlike the infrastructure in georgetown for every telephone pole has about 1000 wires, 90% of which don't work. in kenya they want one where. they don't want that kind of mess going on so they are very, very careful about how they are laying out their infrastructure. ..

that is unimaginable for accidents are down and the best thing we can do far boast that is to let that talent worked here for a few years. the only highly productive talent. not that talent cultivate here, learn from our entrepreneurship, technology and grow strong and return to their home countries to adopt a force multiplier that costs nothing in terms of u.s. taxpayer dollars, generates enormous strength in terms of future relations with the

country and has an enormous impact. we rarely tight immigration policies as we should. >> it's an absolutely superb point. and a rousing point on which to open this up to questions from the audience. >> a quick question as you look at the continental are you've seen back takeoff for entrepreneurs, et cetera. what are they angry in fact there is? jay ireland, ceo based in kenya. entrepreneurs. has he fostered a lot of innovation or is the government that paul khatami orders at all three. or is that none of the above.

is there an anchor that helps them are easily facilitated this entrepreneur tech opportunities. >> well, it is really hard to answer that question because it takes a little bit of everything and it's really hard to give any credit to any of those things. you use paulison example. he's got a very different approach to how he wants to foster innovation and in this country. i don't think it's wrong per se, but i don't see -- i don't care for them many rwandan startups. i hear a lot from ghana, nigeria. pretty much there is a lot of other places where i think the factors, the way the country operate, and the way private sector is allowed to operate freely that actually stimulates a lot of innovation inactivity.

rwanda i just don't see it. doesn't mean it not coming but we don't have evidence to. >> the question is for john or carolyn on the early-stage or late stage capital, what are some unique challenges you see from the international investors in the united states and what are their concessions are unique terms they put in these investments that you would see for a domestic company here. can you talk about that fund raising as it is perceived or real risk or greater risk in africa. >> okay, so first on the last question, idc three pools of capital or three pools of

innovation that i see driving the african innovation. homegrown innovation from companies that are on the continent, small company, small companies launching of some of the larger companies. then he said multinational corporations, and multinational corporations bring in innovation capabilities and n. ge is good at this but it's an exception. even ge from india over into africa. i think i see that more. ibm and barclays, a british example are doing this well, most companies do not innovate in africa for africa. a third is outside in. that is to say not large companies, innovative tech companies that are in silicon

valley or new zealand, that and if they and all of the innovation they bring forth to the market comes forward fastest in an african context. next-line international is a drug company based in silicon valley appeared the launch of their first program is in wanda because to his credit wanted that kind of technology and demonstration project and created the enabling environment to get the millions of hours of safe like they needed they were finding hard to get in california. all three of those pistons in my view need to be getting where we need to go. what john said about government and government control is pretty interesting and contrary. the question -- quickly to the

question of particular concessions about fund raising. at least when i talk to investors about raising funding for a specific come to me, that is africa focus, i don't find they want any particular condition. i address their concerns about risk be at the concerns they have is just the advantage that you shouldn't invest further then you can drive. anything you can't drive two. in africa that's a pretty small number and it will beat you to the people in your house. it is less an issue that i have found at least about confessional financing our special concessions for the capital the unit is overcoming certain preconceived quotas of investing like that one are like the aversion to having employees are human race systems.

another one very common in silicon valley that i don't think really flies in africa. >> we find on the structuring part that our term sheet thinner deals are just like they are in the u.s. or anywhere else. hey, do you receive. the only area where we probably have a stronger approach in africa is on the exit because it's a little weaker environment. there's a lot of fires around the world. you have to find them and make sure it's the right sector in the right country and so forth. particularly bolstering up the exit that we have had fun racing in the u.s. has been an interesting mix. for us. our first sounded very little. el paso gave us a big allocation for africa, which the guy didn't do very well internally after he did that because it was so added their strategy or mandate.

aig is no longer a big investor that applies. after that, the money wanted a track record in institutional manager of the money. now on our eighth fund we think we are looking institutional at this point. but the procedure is still huge. when you get when you go to the endowment in the u.s. and ask for $50 million i'm going to do due diligence. i can't start off the money they have, they don't have a huge team and that's why they were reducing managers. for san francisco city's retirement funds. they wanted sort of packaged in africa is in a one-page risk analysis. the risks to nature is completely different thing to kenya and the opportunity in the north of africa is completely

different than south africa. that might be the distance. as far. it's huge. as the region, but they keep kind of waiting. once one does they will be a lemming effect because they will say they took the risk. back i was institutional. let's do it. i think we are going to tap into that personally. >> we are hearing a little bit of a difference between private equity investing and venture investing. i actually find the tech community including those have invested it remarkably well fitted to africa because they bustier with the the insurgency very well. risk is calculable, like you roll the dice. but uncertainty is incalculable and unknown set of outcomes. the tech community in the u.s. is well-suited to that and that defines what is going on a least

a smaller ventures. >> i don't think it's for lack of entries. i hear a lot about africa when i'm in the valley. i'm flying out there tomorrow. the conversations i'm more about how to weekend and, like where's the opportunities, how do we do diligence of these opportunities and so on. and then it just kind of sinners down. there is always this kind of bush and then no one ever want to take the lead because they get a little overwhelmed. the best thing happening for africa right now as now you have counterparts. you have tech companies rising not an succeeding in getting visibility and finding partners in the silicon valley entrepreneurs who don't have to take the risk of their company there, but maybe they partner with brick or a number of other african tech startups starting to get visibility.

>> great. a question over here. for rove. >> quick question on official corruption about traffic actually. how is it come to a fact with the work you guys doing in terms of the state of the started to make it out of the organizations in the real world, in the wild. >> american corruption? >> corruption in africa. >> how much has that led to the failure of startups in our traffic is spent a lot of time. so i'm sure it's been some of the craziness you've seen. how does that affect the functioning when you can't get anywhere on time? >> that's a pretty broad range in question. >> the corruption point is another interesting and contrarian point for us because i had a background in new york

and london and eastern europe before i came to africa in 2000 nfl so much more corruption before i got to africa i can't even tell you. be happening cap the word out there. we really operate the private sector is that we are not getting into the government that vector. those are all highly regulated by transparent austin regional organizations in africa and i don't see any major corruptions. we've had a company where we've had a manager or sponsor that wasn't on the up and up. you have to deal with that and remove them. but it's been relatively low. the nigerian president has gotten holidays production. the second point against the traffic. they built a new bridge over the

lagoon. legos, however, you make a three-hour window for when you get to the meeting. you are better off on a phone call or you start the meeting in the car and everything is two or three hours late. that is too bad. they definitely need to deal with that. kenya is really a market by market. the driver now takes you off the main road and you think he's going somewhere with you that you may never return from bigger margins than great place. they are working all over there. >> so i have had this fear when i was doing business in uganda that i just feared working with the government at all. i didn't talk to anyone from the local government. i didn't go to any meetings where they would leave because i didn't need to be on the radar. if i could stay under the radar, we could just survive for lack of better word.

the company that i started there now is pretty -- it's like a destination or anyone doing anything with tacking uganda. i started to rethink that. this was after i left. i was talking to the manager there, barbara. i think i was wrong about that. you are building a resource here for your fellow citizens. this could be a resource for ngos in the private sector and the local government. if we figure out the best ways to make a relationship work, i think it was an unnecessary risk that part. i think we hear about. it's just bad marketing for africa. we hear a lot about corruption. some of it is real, but just like everything else there's a lot of hype and that can mean

more intimidating than reality. >> i agree with every thing that's been said. abl adventure and the question on its head and talking about the technology as a solution to this problem. there are a variety of ways in which technology is solving the problem of traffic literally with ways and i've also experienced going into the depths of a back room with a kenyan goober driver only to emerge exactly where i'm supposed to be. so both for the ridesharing and improve traffic technologies and working on really innovative ways of gathering data. you do see that happening. that is intuitive.

you'll see that it works. he may not realize until you see it, the technology to solve the problems corruption. technology and not a nation creates trail and reduces the opportunity for corruption. every point to human dean does something that not track in some way, large and mall. a small example to port and not a nation, port by cn land. when that gets automated, when we know what track is coming in and what track left in what order they arrived, people eliminated a vast tax on the entire economy because it means no one can detract value. i spoke to the people automated the bureau of land management in kenya and they were getting death threat of bureau of land

management. once you turn that system to where anybody with a cell phone can search for the title and go to the kiosk and download the title, it is eliminating a tax where you had to pay for that. technology is not just the big met these two problems. it is a solution. >> i think we are running out of time. we have room for one more before i risk the wrath of kerry framer. >> as someone who has been invested in africa, i does appreciate these panels where we talk about the good side of what is happening, especially when that is not the perception. among practitioners, maybe we can talk about some of the other sides of things. we can try to ignore or try to avoid interaction with governance. i don't deal with the government. if you're investing in 2007 or mozambique today, any of these

countries suddenly becomes your problem. do investors have an obligation or an opportunity to contribute to long-term good governance in africa? >> save in the hardball questions for last. >> who would like to take that one on? >> i think my perspective is there is absolutely an opportunity for that to be the case. should it be a requirement? no. but it is the way i've sort of managing your risk to house some sort of relationship -- some sort of visibility to have the government is operating in thinking about things you might be exposed to political uncertainties that would be visible if you didn't have the relationship. and so, i think it is necessary,

especially when you get past the started staging you get to the level where private equity is interested. it's almost impossible not to have exposure to the government regardless of where you are. >> we and our companies have at least one senior from the local community and they always have their relationship with the government. we have been, since 2000 we have been through two of each civil wars and we run -- we ran on the electric water utilities ivory coast in 2007. we came through that double war. we had airline. during the civil war they commandeered a utility. the e.u. and the horrors we had to do something with the

government. we have a whole government relations department and not investment there. and as they sat or cable company, we have to talk about fulbright or the banking licenses we make capital adequacy requirements in time. our beginning tutorials on good government? no. we have hired lobbyists if we think something is wrong. like kenya's competition is a big phallus. you take a stake in almost anything. even if it's the first company regardless of market dominance. you do need to know what you're doing. i am talking day-to-day are we hanging out with the commission's inspector. i would say we are very similar. >> that's a good note to end on.

there are obstacles doing business in africa, but more in the text that. there are obviously a host of opportunities. looking at africa initiatives with a different set of metrics and indicators with the silicon valley for the ranges than options available are numerous. with that i would like to thank our panel for taking our time out and joining us her and think the audience were asking really good questions. [applause] >> a small gesture we have for you guys pen and pencil set with the signature. thanks again for joining us.

[inaudible conversations] more now from the truman center conference with remarks from jake sullivan, international security policy by their two democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. mr. sullivan outlined the challenges the u.s. faces in the global arena talks about the need for a strategy to advance american value.

>> good afternoon, truman. let's settle down. we've got a great speaker tonight. thank you comic team. if we could just settle down. i know it has been a spectacular day. talked about a lot of the critical issues that we're about to have the agenda of their next speaker. treatment community, we are in the battle that we have been preparing or four years. i'm a truman democrat. i worked in campaigns. i worked in the private sector. i spent six years as an army officer in an army officer and an officer to two world trade and lost friends. as truman democrat, we and the state of the political value we are ran. we believe a great american is grounded in our values, leaned into military and diplomatic strength and uses the best of hard and soft power.

and i hostile world, it is even more important to fight for our values and for a vision of america that is optimistic and strong. the question this year, the question right now is are we going to build on american values, on truman values, or are we going to run away from what has made us great? we have a republican candidate who infuriatingly and accidentally reminds us of what we stand for because of buddies again because of what he stands for. he favors a nuclear arms race in abandoning our allies. he ignores the bill of rights and denies climate change. he supports torture and the random killing of families of those who oppose us. he was for the iraq war before he was against it. he was a strange, quirky crush

on dictators and russia and china. he presents us with a choice of a leader who was unfit, unstable and all five as opposed to hillary clinton to have the experience intelligence and character to the period this year it is critically important that all of you engage. sent away, too many american citizens feel left behind. they are drawn to anger, hostility and fear. it is our responsibility and we have the tools to pan out domestic vision. a vision of american greatness based on strength, but grounded on values and sustained by our best hopes as opposed to our base fears. no one is better to paint that picture than our own brother, truman fellow jake sullivan, the first author of a truman timepiece, the architect of the iran nuclear deal, and incredibly overqualified public

servant has dedicated his life to public service. the iran nuclear deal, a classic application of hard soft power, a fact over fiction and hope over fear. jay, my only advice to those who take your truman's campaign advice and remember as harry turned and said, carry the battle and don't want to bring it to you. don't ever apologize for anything. jake sullivan. [applause] >> thank you for that incredibly kind introduction. to the truman community, it is remarkable to stand here in 2016 at the truman conference and see how this organization has grown. i remember when rachel kleinfeld were just still thinking of that

back in the early 2000. to see how it has evolved over time, spread across the entire country, cover in every sector of our national security community, making a difference in the national conversation and individually, so maybe contributing in ways big and small. he really is just an incredible honor to be able to be here tonight to speak to you. i have been part of the truman family, the truman community basically since the start. i helped him little ways when rachel and not in others for getting it off the ground. really i keep using the term because it is a community of people who while we may not see eye to eye on every specific issue, we all share a few fundamental things. a passion for the idea that the

united states of america has to lead in the world and leave the strength and purpose. a few that we need strong and smart national security policy to be able to keep our country safe and to advance our interests and values around the world and perhaps most importantly, a shared intellectual commitment to finding the best, most durable ideas to the very heart national security questions we can rent every day and they are hard. if you look around the world, there are difficult problems and there are wicked problems. the thing that i've always found so compelling about this organization and the people who make it up is that nobody turns their face away from it. nobody tries to take the easy way

it's an incomplete mission because donald trump is challenging some of the most basic precepts of american policy. on allies, on nuclear weapons can't values, on what makes our country great in the first place in 2002 it was a debate that debate that sort of accepted a certain level of parameters for what the conversation would look like. today i would just urge all of us to think about going back to basics. we have to be able to articulate and aggressively defend first principles. the very idea of american leadership. the simple proposition not to be strong at home we also have to be strong abroad and vice versa. that is now our charge. i believe deeply that americans are not isolationists.

we have to acknowledge that they are asking what should we make of all this. we need credible answers and we need to take their concerns seriously. i will come to donald trump in a minute but i want to reflect upon the moment we are in in our national security. they like to pick the moment they are into saith the it's the most complicated and most challenging and most difficult security moment we've ever seen. in our case it's actually true. [laughter] there have been times in our history where we have seen competition, or where we have had strategic threat of terrorism, but today we are facing geopolitical competition from china and russia, the

threat of strategic terrorism from ice us and al qaeda and we are also dealing with technology creating new opportunities and new threats, cyber and pandemics, and the like. the global turbulence that we are facing now along with domestic challenges here at home, these are all contributing to this pervasive sense that i have talked about with the american people sitting out there asking what is going on, can someone please explain to me what is happening in the world. if you think about what they have seen over the past ten or 15 years, you can understand a certain level of puzzlement. two costly wars with on satisfying outcomes, a painful initial crisis, the rise of ambitious new powers like china and the return of old powers

like vladimir putin's russia. the persistence, the malignant of terrorist threats in enough lame world with collapsing structured and stifled hope. then a healthy dose of domestic political dysfunction in washington. so, we have to be fair and say these have dented, for some people, a sense of sense of strong confidence in our capacity to shape the world. they shouldn't the entire confidence. we should be competent and we should believe we are capable of stepping up and doing our part to lead the world toward the future of greater peace and prosperity. for all of our flaw and all of our self-inflicted wounds, the united united states is still the only country that can step up and get the job done. sec. clinton gave a speech in san diego a couple of weeks ago that i'm sure many of you saw. it was a satisfying opportunity to really lay out the choice in

this election. in that speech she used the term american exceptionalism because she believes we are exceptional and we do have exceptional capacities to go about building that better future for our people and for all people. so, the question then is, those are some nice big words but what's the agenda? what are we actually going to do? how do we actually advance our foreign policy around the world? this is what i i want to spend a little time talking about today. pardon me if had various points i get a little bit wonky. i sometimes need a break from the campaign trail and i may set aside some of the campaign language and talk seriously about what i think the basic project of american foreign-policy has to look like over the next five, ten, 15 years.

at its core, i believe that the project of american foreign-policy is to update and reflect current realities in the world while at the same time and mentally continuing to protect our interests and values. we have to do both of those things at once. we have to acknowledge the new voices and forces and trends in the world but we also have to hold onto the basic precepts and propositions that have existed since we started after the second world war. that was no easy task my friends at the same time making sure the order that emerges at the end of that effort continues to reflect, protect and respect our interests and values. i think that is, in a nutshell what stands before us as the challenge and the opportunity of

american foreign policy. i believe the next decade offers a crucial opportunity for getting this right, for putting that basic organizing principle into practice because if we do not act decisively in the period ahead, if we let things drift benevento going to shape us rather than the other way around. so let's get them right. here i think it all comes down to three basic steps. reinforce, rebalance, reshape. reinforce the foundation of american power and prestige. that means reinforcing our economic foundation and sec. clinton has talked a lot about the investments that we need to make an infrastructure and education and innovation in order to effectively do that. reinforce our political foundation. i will come back to this at the end. the state of our politics today requires quite a bit of reinforcement, like total fixing

up would be another way to put it. reinforce the foundation of our values. many of you guys know better than i do that the reservoirs of american credibility and the degree to which young people in the rest of the world look to the united states and see a more beacon have been depleted over time. that's partly because an entire generation of people around the world have grown up seeing things like guantánamo and have not learned about all of the things that the united states did for decades in the cold war to stand up for freedom and opportunity. we have work to do around the world to recommit ourselves and to spread the message of how the united states does stand for a poor universal values and principles and does want to fight for women's rights and

internet freedom and religious liberty and democracy and all of the things that have laid at the core of a progressive foreign policy agenda and not so many of you work on every day. then of course we need to reinforce the foundation of our alliances. almost everywhere you look on the geopolitical compass, our oldest and most important allies are hard-pressed. now we have brexit from the west we have a massive migration from the south and hillary clinton believes passionately and powerfully, as do i, that reinforcing the transatlantic partnership in the special relationship that we have with the united kingdom are crucial to america's security in the days ahead. this is a fundamental difference of opinion between her and donald trump who basically thinks we should walk away from our alliances. hillary clinton couldn't see it anymore differently.

strengthening those alliances with japan and south korea and philippine and south korea is so crucial to the u.s. being able to project the kind of leadership that we need to keep our people safe and prosperous here at home. rebalance. a lot of you have heard the term rebalance as applied to the rebalance of the asia pacific. i want to take one second to take about that but i believe we need three basic kinds of rebalance is. a rebalance where we are elevating our engagement in the area of greatest growth and opportunity and where the single most consequential geopolitical event of our time, the rise of china is unfolding before our eyes. i remember going with secretary clinton to china in 2011 and meeting with the state counselor who had become familiar with the

term rebalance which was one of the terms in the obama administration and he said i like this term, i think maybe you should contemplate rebalancing out rather than rebalancing in but of course we have a different concept with what we want to accomplish. the united states has to be a resident power in asia. we have to be present and forward deployed. we need balance of a different kind in the middle east. i want to explain what i mean. as we contend with the threat of isis and its safe haven across the iraq syria border, as we work to enforce the iran nuclear deal, something that i obviously cared deeply about, we have to look at the bigger context. in addition to a vicious and perverted ideology that is fueling a lot of the extremists networks and movements in the region, in addition to the fraying and collapse of state

structures and institutions, we concede that the proxy conflict between iran and the sunni state of the nation is helping to fuel the instability in the nation. from my perspective, a rebalance is needed in order to set the table for more effective american strategy in the middle east. it goes like this, we need to raise the cost on iran for its destabilizing behavior and we need to raise the contents of our sunni partners if the united states is going to be there. in so doing and raising their confidence begin to try to draw down some of their more dangerous hedging behavior. raise the cost on iran, raise the confidence of our sunni partners and set the table for more effective partnership to fight isis. this is something that has to be played out with something more than simple terms like that. it's something i would love to engage with many of you in the room on as we go forward because

if there's one thing we all know , it's that this set of challenges from nigeria and west africa all the way across to the south asia is something that is such a complicated and difficult set of questions that we need to grapple with and we certainly haven't gotten all the answers right today. it will take us as many good minds as we can muster working with our partners in the region and around the world to try to do better as we go forward. finally, a third kind of rebalance. the third kind of rebalance from my perspective is thinking about rebalancing our own tools and capabilities. you see, for those of you who have spent time in government, our adversaries are getting faster, they're getting more adaptable and are using increasingly asymmetric means to advance their objectives, many

of which are in direct conflict with ours. propaganda, the use of corruption as a national security tool to influence neighbors and destabilize them. the use of cyber tools and avoiding attribution. we just saw the democratic national committee hacked a few weeks ago when we could ask ourselves who the progenitor of that act was. as we watch our adversaries, whether they they be state actors or they be nonstate actors get more effective, more more nimble, more adaptable and frankly faster, just faster we have to confess that we haven't been able to fully keep up with the speed and flexibility that is required to deal with these asymmetric threats. so i believe that we need a rebalance of capabilities where we are really lifting up our ability to compete and win in

the cyber domain. our ability to compete and win against corruption. our ability to push back against and effectively break down the kinds of inverted propaganda that we are seeing from both state and nonstate actors from around the world. this is another big piece of business. this goes beyond managing geopolitical relationships are dealing with a specific terrorist group. this goes to understanding what the evolving threats are in the world and being able to take after them in a smart, sound and ultimately sustainable way. finally, reshape. i won't spend a lot of time on this but i think you can go down the list of the major sets of rules governing behavior in our world today, whether cyber or nuclear proliferation or trade investment or climate, and see that the world bargaining table, the world decision-making forms

are messy and complicated and difficult but there is no substitute for the united states stepping up and saying we are going to refurbish. we are going to more effectively shape the rules of the road that govern each of these major areas just to tell a quick story that i've told to some of you, in december 2009 i was with secretary clinton in copen hagan there were 30 heads of state gathered in a small room of a shopping center in copenhagen. you had prime minister of india, south africa, china et cetera. sec. clinton was there representing president obama who was coming in the next day.

they're going back and forth and doing what people do in these circumstances which is argue a lot and make very little progress. at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning it all broke up and everybody came downstairs to this big atrium. the problem was there was a blizzard raging outside. they could only bring up one motorcade at a time. so you had 40 world leaders snaking through this atrium in what can only be described as the world's weirdest taxicab line. twenty-nine deep toward the back of the pack is nicholas are cozy after about 15 minutes of one motorcade of another he steps out and says in english i want to die. [laughter] everyone just starts applauding. [laughter] the question is, why am i telling the story? this is it.

this is what we are dealing with gone are the days were a smoker the power go into a room of people shake hands and you write a full agreement top to bottom, you send send it out and everybody signs on. we have ushered in an era where the rowdiness and the difficulties of getting to credible results is so immense. even the paris deal represents some strange amount of finding a nonbinding, formal and informal, temporary and ad hoc because that is what the shape of the future is going to look like. on the campaign trail global governance, we it sounds a little highfalutin, but at the end of the day when you're talking about something like the wto or you're talking about rules to deborah in the cyber domain and we need to figure out how to we attribute, how do we

respond, how do we deter, it becomes real for people very quickly. just to take an example, we are now 15 years beyond the a session of china and a lot of the basic practices that threaten a fair international trading system today are covered in the wto. whether it's currency manipulation for all of these barriers behind borders that are really hard to pin down. we have to do something about those things. there's going to be a lot of really weird taxicab lines and a lot of windowless rooms in the middle of the night with a lot of voices and a lot of competing perspectives and interests and it's going to take strong leadership to pull it all together. reshaping the rules of the road is going to have to be a fundamental project. it's not just for the classroom. it's not just for international relations scholars. this is something that will matter fundamentally in the lives of everyday americans and

we have to get it right. we have to be pursuing an affirmative progression on this. what do we have to watch out for what are the big alligators that are swimming close to the vote? what can throw us off of pursuing this affirmative agenda but i just laid out? first there is the challenge of disrupting forces, disruptive forces including aggressive actions like russia invading the ukraine. the potential for another global financial crisis. i don't believe that's what brexit will produce but it's clear from the economic uncertainty generated in last 24 hours that decision taken in capitals or countries far away can end up having an impact on american family member pocketbooks here at home and we have to pay due attention to that as we go forward. by the way many of the tools that we have at our disposal to

respond to the last financial crisis have already been deployed and venues. our toolkit doesn't have quite as many tools in it for the next one that comes around. then of course the possibility of major terrorist events. how to say one more word about russia in terms of the potential for disruption to this effort that i'm talking about. it's easy to dismiss russia for some of us, as a declining power with the one-dimensional economy and shrinking population but declining power can be just as disruptive as rising powers and we cannot afford to underestimate what is likely to be a long-term challenge from a russia that is aggressive and insecure. secretary clinton has talked about our fascination that donald trump seems to have with strongmen around the world starting with vladimir putin. i don't think he gets this. i don't think he fundamentally

understands what russia represents were on the flip side of the coin, what the affirmative foreign-policy project of the united states is that russia could end up being a disruptor too. i think that is one of the things that we are going to have to see play out in the foreign policy debate over the next few months. another major impediment to getting through this affirmative agenda that i played out, like all the tyranny of the inbox. for all of you guys have worked in government you realize very quickly that laying out a nice affirmative strategy rarely meets first contact with the morning news headlines in whatever is happening in the world. there is a little bit of a function of the 8-year-old soccer game where everybody runs to the ball as the thing that's happening this week. i think a big part of what the

next administration has to be thinking about is how do you set up mission oriented teams to escape and overcome the tyranny of the inbox. that is something that i have personally given up lot of thought too. how do we make sure we are staying on the front foot. that we deal with crises as they arrive but we don't take our eye off the ball about the kind of country and world we are trying to create. then finally, there is the third impediment which is the impediment of politics in national security. now, year or two ago when i talked about politics and national security, i talked about the more ordinary, and it's sad to say it's become less ordinary on things like the letter that tom cotton sent to the ayatollahs of a real thing don't bother dealing with barack obama he doesn't speak for america. unusual stuff but that was like

jv compared to the kinds of things that donald trump is bringing forward with his propositions about national security. this is not a typical democrat versus republican year. this is something else entirely. this is hillary clinton, secretary of state, somebody, somebody with strength and experience in leadership to be commander-in-chief again somebody who is truly temperamentally unfit and unqualified to lead this country. someone who should not have their finger on the nuclear i think today, in scotland, donald trump proved that once again. every time there is a significant national or global event, he proved once again that basic proposition that he is unfit for the job. my observation, based on what he did today, for those of you who haven't seen his press conference, i would recommend

taking a look at it, is we are seeing an emerging donald trump playbook in reaction to a crisis. the first up is rather than respond with any sense of strength or leadership he engages in what can only be called pathological self congratulations. rather than thinking about how he can leader reassured her talk about were going to do, he literally pats himself on the back. we saw that in orlando and in scotland today. second, rather than consult with people who might actually know something about the particular event, he falls only with himself. some of you have heard what he said about isis, that he doesn't need to consult with anyone on isis because he has a very good brain and that he knows more about isis than the trend in general, believe me. and from that donald trump playbook he got a question at his press conference any was

asked if he has spoken about his advisers with brexit and he said no because there was nothing to talk about. rather than get the facts he just makes things up. today he tweeted that scotland was going wild over the vote. scotland voted overwhelmingly against leaving the year pin union. rather than talk or think about what's good about americans, he talks of things only what are good for himself. and he always says something that shows he doesn't have a clue what it means to be commander-in-chief. in this case in his press conference today he said the running a golf course is a lot like running a country. [laughter] i suppose in retrospect this was all utterly predictable but i

have to say that it never ceases to be astonishing and it shouldn't ever cease to be astonishing. one of the things that concerns me is that as time goes on people are going to treat this bizarre and dangerous behavior as normal or to talk about it truly through the political lens, was that a smart move or not a smart move. i urge all of you and everybody out there who cares deeply about this country to think about what it would mean to have donald trump in the oval office in the situation room making situations of life and death. many people in the trimming community are either veterans were active members of u.s. military or our reserves. you guys know so much better than i do what it actually takes to protect this country and keep it safe. the sad fact is that donald

trump has consistently displayed a sort of contempt for what it actually takes to support our military and support our veterans and to support the things that make america the greatest country in the world. so in particular, to the members of the trimming community who have relationships with and are part of the greater veterans in community, i just ask all of you to join us in working to show the people out there who are standing on the front line and defending our country that we are behind them. secretary clinton has spent a career supporting veterans and military families and active-duty service members. we can collectively stop donald trump and have to do so because we believe, i believe he represents a real danger.

there is a bizarreness to it and there are things that make you actually want to chuckle, but at the end of the day this isn't a laughing matter because aches are so high. so let me close by saying that it's not enough to just scoff at or rejects this person. all of us trapped into saying you believe that this or that. that will not win this election or will it advance of foreign policy agenda for this country. we have to be the more and better than that. we need an affirmative vision like the kind i laid out today. those are some thoughts that i have put together we have to come up with. >> you can watch the rest of his remarks on our website. we are leaving the last few minutes to take you life to the

british house of commons in london where david cameron will be addressing members about last week's vote in the uk to leave the european union. he announced that he intends to step down by the end of september. the labour party leader is also expected to speak. several of his cabinet members have resigned and there have been calls within the party for him to resign. >> order, order. will the member wishing to take her seat please come to the table.

>> i swear by almighty god that i will be faithful and true allegiance to her majesty queen elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law so help me god. >> here here. [laughter]

[inaudible conversation] order, statement of the prime minister. >> here here. >> thank you mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on the results of the referendum. last week saw one of the biggest mechanic exercises in our history with over 33 million people from england, scotland, wales, northern ireland all having their say. we should be proud of our parliamentary democracy. it is right when we consider questions of this magnitude and we don't just leave it to politicians but rather listen directly to the people. that is why members from across this house voted for a referendum margin of almost 60 met one. when i talk about this house let me talk about the new member

choosing to take her place. [laughter] and i thought i was having a bad day. what this means, that steps were taken immediately to stabilize the uk economy, the work on negotiation to leave the eu, our plans of involving both administrations and the next step toward the european council it was the british people's vote to leave the union. it was not the result i wanted or what i think was best for the country that i love but there is no doubt about the result. i don't take about back what i said about the respirator will be difficult.

we've seen there will be adjustments within our economy. complex institutional issues and challenging new negotiations under take with europe. i am clear on the reason this morning morning that the decision must be accepted in the process of implementing the decision in the best possible way must now begin. at the same time mr. spiegel we have a fundamental responsibility to bring our country together. in the past few days we have seen despicable graffiti on the polish community center. we have seen verbal abuse because they are members of ethnic minorities. these people have come here and made a wonderful contribution to our country. we will not stand for a crimes are these kind of attacks. they must be stamped out. mr. speaker, we can reassure citizens living here and brits living in european countries that there will be no immediate changes in their circumstances. neither will there be any initial change in the way our people can travel, the way our

goods can move or the way our services can be sold. we negotiate that the european council will be discarded in a new negotiation to leave the eu will begin under a new prime minister. turning to our economy it's clear that markets are volatile. some companies are considering their investments and we know this will be far from easy. we should take confidence from the fact that we are ready to confront what the future holds for us from a position of strength. as a result of a long-term plan, we have one of the strongest major advanced economies in the world. we are well played to face the challenges ahead. we have stable inflation, the employment rate remains the highest it's ever been. and it's forecast bully below 3% this year. the financial system is more resilient and was 66 years ago. with capital requirements for

the largest banks, there are ten times higher than before the banking crisis. the markets may not have been expecting the referendum result but as the chance chancellor said this morning, the treasury and bank of england and other authorities have spent the last few months putting in place robust continuously plans. as the governor of the bank of england said, the bank stress test has shown that the uk institutions have enough capital and liquidity reserves to withstand a scenario more sincere severe than the country currently faces. the banks can make it available 250 billion additional funds of it needs to support banks and market. in the coming days the treasury come the bank of england and the financial authority will continue to be in close contact. they have contingency plans in place to maintain financial ability and they will not hesitate to take further measures if required. turning to preparations for our negotiations from the exit of eu the cabinet met this morning

that will bring together officials and policy expertise from across the cabinet office, treasury, foreign office and business departments. clearly this clearly this will be the most complex and most important task that the british double service has undertaken in decades. the new unit will set at the heart of government and be led and stopped by the best and brightest from across our civil service. it will report to the cabinet on delivering the outcome of the referendum, advising on transitional issues and exploring objective options from outside the eu. it will be responsible for ensuring the new prime minister has the best possible advice from the moment of their arrival. mr. speaker i know colleagues on all sides of the house will want to contribute to how we prepare and execute the new negotiation to leave the eu. the dutch of lancaster will listen to all comments and make sure they are put into this plan

turning to the administration we must ensure that the interest of all parts of the united kingdom are protected in advance. as we prepare for new negotiation with the eu, we willfully involve the scottish, welsh and northern ireland governments. we also consult gibraltar and the territories and regional centers including the lump london assembly. i spoke with scotland and wales as well as the first minister in northern ireland and our officials will be working together over the coming weeks to bring our administrations into the process for determining the decisions that need to be taken. while all the key decisions will have to await the new prime minister, there is a lot of work that can be started now. for instance the british and irish governments meet this week to work through the challenges relating to the common border area. mr. speaker, tomorrow i will attend the year pin counsel. in the last few days i've spoken to chancellor merkel and a

number of other european leaders. we've discussed the need to prepare for negotiations and the fact that the british government will not be triggering a local 50 at this stage. before we do that we need to determine the kind of relationship we want for the eu. there's really something for the next prime minister and their cabinet to decide. i've also made this point to the president of the european council and the european commission and i'll make this again at the european council tomorrow. mr. speaker this is our sovereign decision and it will be for britain and britain away alone to take. tomorrow is also an opportunity to make this point. britain is leaving the eu that we must not turn our back on europe or the rest of the world. >> care. >> the nature of the relationship we secure with the eu will be determined by the next government. i think everyone agrees we want the strongest economic links with our european neighbors as well as our friends in north america and the commonwealth and all its partners like india and

china. i'm also sure that whatever the nature of our future relationship, we want to continue with a great deal of our extensive security corporation and to do all we can to influence decisions that will affect the prosperity and safety of our people here at home. mr. speaker this negotiation will require strong and committed leadership. as i said i think the country requires a new administering cabinet to take it in this direction for this is not a decision i've taken likely but i'm actually convinced it is in the national interest. mr. speaker although leaving the eu is not the path i recommended, i am the the first to praise our incredible strength of the country. as we proceed with implementing this decision in facing the challenges that it will bring, i believe we should hold fast to the vision of britain that wants to be respected abroad, tolerant at home and engaged in the world and working with our international partners to advance the prosperity and security of our nation for generations to come. i have fought with these things

every day of my political life and i will continue to do so and i commend the statement of the house. >> your hair. >> thank you, thank you mr. speaker. first of all i would like to thank the british people for turning out to vote in such high numbers. the vote was a reflection of the significance of the issue. it was a close vote. on the back of the campaign that was too often divided and negative. these put forward a positive step to remain part of the european union and required two thirds of our own supporters but majority of people have voted to leave. we have accepted what they said. many people feel disenfranchised and powerless, especially in parts of the country that have been left behind for far too

long. communities that have been let down, not by the european union but by government. those communities don't trust politicians because for too long they haven't. so, instead of more extreme cuts to local services, which have hit the areas the hardest, this government needs to invest in those communities. many of those areas are deeply concerned about the security of pledged eu funding. can the prime minister give us any guarantees on those issues as that money is desperately needed. secondly, the issue of trust in the tenor in the referendum campaign was disheartening. untruths were told. many key figures spent the weekend distancing themselves

from to claim that the vote to leave would hand nhs an extra 350 million pounds per week. it is quite shameful that politicians made claim they need to be false and promises they knew could not be delivered. thirdly, real concern exists about immigration but too much of a discussion in the referendum campaign was divided. in the days following the referendum results, it appears we have seen the rise in greatest incidents such as the attack on hammersmith which the prime minister referred to and sadly many other subjects all over this country. i hope the time minister can address the attacks on the streets of this country.

as political leaders we have a duty to calm our language and our tone, especially after shocking events of ten days ago. our country is divided and the country. [inaudible] mr. speaker we have serious work in this house and in the country. i want to accommodate as many as possible of those colleagues who wish to question the prime minister. matters are slowed up a people make a lot of noise. thank you mr. speaker. it does appear that neither wing

of the government has an exit plan which is why we are insisting that the labour party be fully engaged in the negotiation that lie ahead. we need the freedoms to shape our economy for the future and protect social and employment rights while building new policies on trade, on migration, environmental protection and on --dash investment. i fully understand the prime minister is standing down in three months time but we cannot be in a stage of paralysis until then. the prime minister is making the european council tomorrow. i hope you will say that the negotiations will begin so we know what's going on rather than being delayed until october. we as a house have a duty to act in the national interest and ensure we get the best agreements for our constituents. will the prime minister today confirmed that in the light of the economic turmoil the chancellor will announced a suspension and determination of

the now even more accountable productive physical rule. what the economy needs now is a clear plan for investment. particularly in those communities that have been so damaged by this government and sent such a strong message to all of us last week. will he specifically rule out tax or further cuts to public services that were threatened in the free referendum. i welcome his assurances on the uncertainty felt by many eu nationals, currently working in our economy, including the 52000 who work so well and help our national health service to provide the service we all need. it is welcome that the prime minister consulted with the leaders and administration i hope with the mayor of london two, city for which the implications are huge. we must act in public interest and support measures to reduce volatility. i welcome protections but what

about protections for people's jobs, their wages and their pensions. can the prime minister make clear what plans are in place. the chancellor spoke this morning to reassure the stock markets though they clearly remain very uncertain. we understand that some measures cannot be discussed in the house so just an assurance that they will provide private briefings on this matter. finally mr. speaker, on a personal note, may i say i have many fundamental disagreements with the prime minister and his government. another the left as he announces the end of his leadership it's right to say that he was right to do so. i want to thank you two in response to the inquiry and the reaction to tragic murder of jo

cox. i'm sure we will enjoy many more debates and disagreements while he continues as time minister. >> thank you mr. speaker. let me agree with the leader of the opposition that was positive turnout was high and i also agree with him we need to reach out to the people who haven't benefited from economic growth and make sure they feel their economic security is important to us as well but i don't agree with him that it's right to start to try and refight the campaign all over again. all i know for my part is i feel i put everything i could into the campaign that i believed in, head heart and soul and i left nothing out. i think that was the right thing to do. answering his questions on money of different areas of the country, until we leave the eu, none of those arrangements change so what has been set out in the budget budget and the payments, all of those continue. as the negotiation begin for leaving, obviously the next government will want to set out what arrangements it will put in place for farmers or local

authorities for regions of our country. on intolerance and fighting intolerance, i absolutely agree, we have to take all action we can to stamp this out. he asked about the chancellor's physical rule and also future plans. what i would say is we have not worked so hard to get the budget deficit from 11% down to below 3% to see that go to waste. we must continue to make sure that we have a sound and strong economic plan in our country for the coming months that is my responsibility and in time it will be the responsibly of new government and they have to decide how to react if there are economic difficulties along the way. he asked if there could be private briefings for members of the process with the chancellor and as always, in these arrangements, if shadow cabinet members want these briefings they can have them. can i finally thanked him for his kind remarks and the fact that he hopes we will be debating with each other and

some weeks and months to come. >> mr. speaker, when we acquire a new government that assigns what it means by leaving and rolled up some detailed policy instructions, a great deal of detailed legislation will be uncovering a whole variety of fields will start being submitted to this parliament. does my friend agree that we still have a parliamentary democracy and it will be the duty of each member of parliament to judge each measure and the like of which each man and woman regards as the national interest and not to take broad guidance from what has produced a small majority on a question with an ill-informed event. would he agree that if we face months of uncertainty, if we're not careful.

>> certs really not acceptable for people to make that amount of noise. the gentleman will be heard in every member of this house will be heard. let's accord the gentleman the respect of which is entitled. >> thank you mr. speaker. >> as a risk of uncertainty for a few months causing very considerable difficulty, we consider the first step of joining the european economic area which was designed in the first place for countries like norway and iceland were the great bulk of politicians wish to join the european union but could not get past the ridiculous hurdle of a referendum in order to get there that could be negotiated, modifications, changes if anybody can decide what they want after we get there. or do we give some reassuring order and stability to our economy and might begin to attract a little investment in

future prospect for our country. >> thank you for our honorable friend for his remarks. might be a symbol that this house shouldn't block the will of the british people to leave the european union but of course we now have a look at all the detailed arrangements in parliament will rarely have a role in that, in making sure that we find the best way forward. that will be the job for the next government, but i do believe in parliamentary sovereignty and the sovereignty of this group. it must be for a future government. >> thank you very much mr. speakman. scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain. 62% of voters cast their votes to remain in the eu, every single local government area and the country voted to remain in the eu and in scotland we voted to remain because it really

matters that we are in a single european market because we value the free movement of people of goods and services because our eu citizenship rights matter as to our legal safeguards for what goes for women and others. in scotland, mr. speaker, we voted to remain because we are a european nation and it really, really matters to us that we live in an hour looking country, not a diminished little britain. in scotland we are now being told from westminster that despite the majority against leave, we are going to have to do as were told, we have to be taken out of europe against our will. mr. speaker, let me tell this house and our friends across europe, we have no intention whatsoever of seeing scotland taken out of the eu. that would be totally

democratically unacceptable. we are a european country and we will stay a european country. if that means we have to have an independence referendum to protect the island then so be it thank goodness mr. speaker we have a scottish parliament in a minister prepared to lead and protect scotland's place and it is very, very welcome that this approach is being supported by oppositions across the scottish parliament. projects here have turned to project sparse. apparently those who propose we should leave europe has no plan. there is no plan, believe campaign went on to say number ten should have had a plan. meanwhile, share prices are so volatile that some docs have

temporarily been suspended and sterling has hit a 31 year low. mr. speaker, on one thing i hope we are all agreed and that is that we take very serious note of the very disturbing series of races incidents directed against our fellow citizens who happen to come from other european countries. i've hope that we all, on all sides totally repudiate these despicable acts and encourage the police and prosecuting authorities to do all that they can. mr. speaker, given the economic damage and uncertainty that is currently being caused, may ask the prime minister the following questions. we welcome the actions of the governor of the bank of england to help provide certainty in difficult times. can the prime minister confirmed that the governor has no plans presently to change his forward guidance on interest rates.

the essence he will continue to prevent measures to deliver stability in the uk economy at this time, however, we want to be explicitly clear that this will not be used to further deepen the program of prosperity. in conclusion, the lack of leadership from over the past few days has been unprecedented. we recognize that any further threats or vacuum exacerbate uncertainty. we know the prime minister is planning to leave and we wish him well, but can we have an absolute assurance that his government will finally start to take a firm grip of the situation we all sadly find ourselves in. >> first about what i say is that our focus should be to get the very best deal for the united kingdom outside the european union and that should mean the very best deal for scotland as well. i actually agree with the despicable acts of racism that have taken place in many reassure him we will take every

step that we can. yes question specifically about interest rate. that is for the monetary policy committee then they are out their views in advance of the referendum. he asked about budget and now be a matter for future government. let me say this, scotland benefits from being in two separate markets, the united kingdom and the european market, in my view, the best outlook is to keep scotland in both. >> sir william cash. >> thank you mr. speaker, may first of all pay tribute to the prime minister for the dignity which he addressed the nation from ten downing street yesterday. mr. speaker will my friends take a positive and simple message to the leaders of the other 27 member states and the european council tomorrow, namely the voters of the united kingdom

have demonstrated a value of that great principle, the principle of democracy for which people fought and died. >> let me take my honorable friend of course when i go to the council tomorrow i'll report on the do resultant decision of the british people and no one should be in any doubt about that. i think it's important that we set off on this path of exiting from the european union. we've tried to build as much goodwill as possible on both sides. >> can i pay tribute to the prime minister following the announcement of his resignation on friday. of course we have and agreed but his commitment to historic bipartisanship during the coalition government and his energetic commitment to the remain campaign was favorable to the tribalism of others. he has my respect and my thanks. i also