sector to try to organize those folks. under my administration that is exactly, the public sector folks need representation and that is great. we will get all we can get but we can't neglect core industries which we have done. i have set it a dozen times because it is critical we do that or we are going to lose our core industries. >> 32nd rebuttal. >> i think -- i continue to hear about this and tell you, organizing more core industry than we have in the past 12 years than the previous 30. it hasn't caught on. fred has more resources and organized 108 workers in the last five years and during that time, had four companies

decertified and want out of the union. no representation. >> we are going to move to closing statements as drawn by lot. ken hall will go first. >> i am proud, i predicted, fred might be a little angry and you have seen it but we are responsible for keeping people in the middle class but we do have issues like pension. we have got to work together regardless of who wins this election. we don't need scorched earth, we need to let members vote and urged our members to vote by the way but we need to look about what the real issues are. i got to say, he lost his own

election, people who knew him best vote against him by 70% for now he is running for general secretary. these contracts for political purposes, it is a shame. he has his running mate who signed off they will endorse their supplement, the greatest opponent ever, email the company. trying to sell it. just played politics, they didn't do it. talk about corruption, hasn't answered the question yet. it would be an easy decision if we have a seward committed battery, and haven't heard what happened, taking money from someone in rhode island, one of

the delegates who retaliated against another member and got them disciplined. that is not what this union is about. it is about us working together, continuing to have the best contracts in the labor movement which we do, working together on problems that face us. thank you for the opportunity to be here, regardless of you are going to vote for. >> he can't run on a record of 17 years of failure. that is why he is not here tonight, he campaigns on strong contracts, better healthcare coverage and good pension and retirement, nothing could be further than the truth. contract in every industry have been studied because of his failed leadership, healthcare has -- ups remembers ken hall saying we won't pay $90, $9.09 for healthcare as we paid much more through a reduction in benefits, wage increases and

pension contributions to pay for our healthcare and a 600% cost increase in retirement benefits. now over 500,000 teamsters, local 707, local 469, new york state and others are at risk of losing their pension because of neglect to organize, failure to put participants into the teamsters pension plan and allowing participating employers to leave the funds. it is time to stop lying to membership, it would never be fixed with administration that is corrupt, inept, weak and in bed with employers. members are willing to fight for a better future. they want leadership, time to have leadership that will stand with members instead of taking the side of the employer's. my promise to you is i will get rid of the corruption in our union. anyone who commits a crime against membership has no

business being in a leadership position. we will organize our core industries and increase number should because that is what will strengthen job security and pensions in those industries. we will find solutions to the multi employer pension crisis in order to save the pensions of hundreds of thousands of teamsters who would otherwise lose their pensions, vote teamsters united, fix problems standing between us and get a brighter future. >> thank you very much. this concludes the 2016 teamsters officer candidate for him. [applause] >> i would like to thank our audience for abiding by the rules, thank our panelists, thank you for being here. [applause]

>> i would like to thank jamie horwitz, vice chair, chair of the newsmakers committee. recording of this debate will be available at ittvote.org, teamster members please look at your ballots to mail in october, ballots will be mailed on october '62 all members of the united states and here, to cast your super ballot vote so it can be counted, thank you from the national press club where news happens. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we need serious leadership, not a reality tv show, this is real. >> we will make america great again. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice president of debate on c-span, c-span radio, c-span.org, monday, september 26th, the first presidential debate live from hempstead, new york. tuesday, october 4th, vice presidential candidate governor mike pence and senator tim came debate at monmouth university and on sunday, october 9th, washington university in st. louis hosts the second presidential debate leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump at the university of nevada las vegas, live coverage of presidential advice

presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio apps or watch anytime online on c-span.org. >> coming up this weekend on american history tv on c-span3 the abraham lincoln presidential library foundation published a book by public figures and ordinary americans celebrating or responding to lincoln's gettysburg address, the editor of gettysburg replies, the world response to abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, reading passages from the book saturday night at 8:50 p.m. eastern. >> it still resonates from the words he has written and artifacts and documents he has left behind for posterity. he was a simple yet deeply complex man who looked at complex issues plainly and purely. he accepted and spoke the truth.

many believe lincoln transcended all other presidents who served before him and since. his great american story has reached and continues to reach across borders and oceans, races and religions, politics and party lines. >> at 10:00 pm on real america, the march in washington, august 28, 1963, us information agency filmed the march on washington for jobs and freedom and produced a documentary for foreign audiences and at 4:30 p.m. eastern this marks the 40th anniversary of the nasa viking landing on mars at nasa's langley research center historians recently discussed the viking program that led to the first us spacecraft on mars on july 20, 1976. >> the events about july 20, 1976, were angrily exciting. when the lander landed, the team

programmed in two photographs to be taken so they could be delivered fairly quickly back to earth for nasa to confirm the landers had in fact landed on mars. >> at 8:00 eastern on the presidency historians look at president harry truman's leadership and how he interacted with three prominent national politicians, former secretary of state madeleine albright speaks with a historian about harry truman's commitment to public service as vice president and president. >> this is someone who should have gone to college, graduate school, deeply wanted to, couldn't do it mainly because of his family's economic circumstances. if there is one thing he felt strongly, when he became president he wanted to help others. one way he did that was to strengthen the community college system. >> for complete american history

tv schedule go to c-span.org. >> c-span, created by america's cable television companies that brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> basel ghattas is a palestinian member of his relapse parliament. in washington dc he discussed israeli laws and their impact on israel's arab community. this one hour form was hosted by the arab center in washington. >> let's start. my name is khalil jahshan, a special event on legislative

developments impacting civil liberties in israel. is really politics for most of you aware and observing the situation in the middle east, israeli politics, citizens of israel in all spheres of life including the economy, education, employment, that is well-documented, not news to anybody studying researcher focusing on the arab-israeli conflict or policies. most recently the knesset approved legislative steps and considering a few more over the next few months including talking about the explosion of

members of the knesset, of palestinian background designed to put pressure on members of the knesset representing palestinian citizens, not necessarily isolated but the latest in a series of legislative efforts and policies that encroach on civil and political liberties in israel. it is not uniquely targeting palestinians but also targeting the israeli left, targeting opposition in israel to try to diminish their impact and influence negatively their activities. as a member of the israeli knesset our speaker today has himself been a target of such legislation and definitely very

well-equipped to explain the process and bring us up to date on the most recent development in this regard particularly with the internal implications of this legislation to israeli politics and their impact for legislative steps as important as they are on us foreign policy considering the special relationship between washington and tel aviv. basel ghattas is a good friend and i'm delighted he is with us today. we go back a long way. he has been a knesset member for a while, he joined in 2013, before that he was involved in the ngo community and we interacted for several years in that capacity but he is now a

member of a block known as the joint arab list in the 20th knesset of this time, joint list of 13 members including 12 who are palestinians and 13 is a jewish member of the knesset who belongs to that block. he has been founding member of the national democratic party, he helped in founding the movement and before the unity block was joined last year. for more than 25 years he has been a recognized figure domestically and regionally and internationally in terms of defending palestinian rights in

israel in terms of ngo, the most prominent ngos in israel, and the galilee society focused on economic development and planning. they are concentrated in israel. also a founding member of an important ngo today, for those not aware of it, the equivalent of the naacp, issues of civil rights first palestinians who are citizens of israel. basel ghattas hold a doctorate in environmental engineering, and the most prominent engineering schools, he holds an mba from the joint program, and

tel aviv university and a pleasure to have you with us, he will talk for 30 minutes and we will open the floor for questions and answers. and wait for it to be passed to you. it is registered in terms of programs, don't want to do silent movies, we want your voice to be heard at that time. >> thank you for coming for this talk, delighted to be in washington dc, in the area, in

2001, i quit my job in 2007, i hope -- i feel this would open the door to be active especially because it fits with what i'm believing in and trying to do in washington and new york and before that in canada. putting a lot of focus on international activity to changing the reality in the middle east and to comply with

international will and human rights to stop occupation and given the political situation in the middle east and arab world it is a must to dramatically international activism, and to tell that, the palestinian question is undermined the last few years continuously, complications that have happened internationally, i will divide my talk, introductions about

what is going on in israel in recent years, on the last government of the last election and speak about changes in israeli politics, and how this is expressed in the current legislations, could 17 mention -- khalil jahshan mentioned part of it, will have an impact on the arabs palestinian citizens of israel and how this is in the future, perhaps also a dramatic change vis-à-vis israeli political system.

i have been asked recently, many places i talked in new york and new jersey and washington dc, the current government, the worst ever, extremist ever in the israeli government. my question is yes, how politics, and more extreme. as political party, to bring

this government down, to remove this government, dismantle, this should be based on the hope the next election bring the change, some sort of change that should be better but this is not the case. even if you try to remove, dismantle this government, the genuine political sense, next election will not bring any change, that we like to see peaceful government, all the changes between the labor

parties and government led by the labour party which it has been for almost 20 years and the differences in how they conceive the solution for the conflict, i will explain that. another question, benjamin netanyahu, did they lose their mind? this is their mind. this is how they think. the only thing that changed, this is very important. the only thing that changed is for the first time the likud is ruling according to its own agenda, precise, no compromises in order to bring certain

parties that make the pr like he did the government before that and the role of foreign minister, before ehud barack, the labour party, to do for him the same job. now for many reasons, and i phrase it like this, could reach the power in israel because they know there are 66 out of 10020 knesset members that belong to the right, right wing and extreme right religious parties

with religious orthodox parties. the proof is two months ago when they had the chance -- prepared to take it, take government and given the defense minister and throwing away the measure in the likud party is not easy. this is a huge omission they made. i want to rule according to my agenda, right wing agenda, no compromise with anybody. this we see every day in the knesset, crazy law, fascist law,

something called the coalition administration after the government meeting, we are going on this law. the monday after the knesset hearing. they insist on taking the first reading and it goes to the comedy which prepares it for the second and third reading, months, they do public discussions, these laws are anti-democratic and it took less than a week of preparation for the second or third period and after, the whole legislative process took weeks and the law

is over israeli law and amazing. something i will jump to, another observation, the likud believes, with all of the -- democracy is only about one thing, majority rule. the majority rule, that if it. no minority rights, no human rights, no checks and balances, no division of authority. every legislation made in the last few months has aggressively attacked certain authorities of the system like the one that is

famous, putting minimum punishment, prison punishment and you have to give something -- you can send them home. etc. etc.. i will refer to this later, how the knesset put for itself, judicial roles, they will decide if this knesset member is political behavior. and they said -- has such a low

in congress. and congress member and because of a criminal in israel. if any knesset member is connected, described in detail, immediately loses knesset. doesn't have to process. this is purely political given the knesset, power of the supreme court, that you have gross redlines or something in contradiction with the three

points that the law specifies in a jewish state. supporting terror or not, the majority of knesset members, this is how they decide on expulsion. it needs 90 knesset members. it is really impressive. that is -- makes the law clearly designed for expulsion of arabic nations. it would be in many cases, being

thrown away. and families of victims, we were punished, me and myself were expelled for two months. this low was at that time would find the majority, 90, one of us. so the likud think democracy, the rule of the majority, this is the only democracy, doing the only democracy, continuous attack on freedom of speech and democracy, anti-arab, splitting

daily heads of speech, incitement, continuous incitement by the prime minister himself against his own citizens, what he used in droves coming to the election to vote, wanting them to come, this has helped him achieving this majority, something that was fabulous, concrete impact on election results. what happened since the last government was established? this government, benjamin

netanyahu ruling is real, is that he continues with what he started as one anchor with his policy, managing the conflict. everybody knows, i suggest everybody knows that, a two state solution, he was lying on purpose, as part of his conflict management. i withdraw obama for the last two years but for not one second, or anything, even the smallest step toward progress in

that direction, everything he did was against potential possibility for states in palestine. he believes, unfortunately it is true, proves that he can manage the conflict. syria, egypt, a big span -- hezbollah, all of this in the arab world, refugees in europe, that this is perhaps the optimal strategic situation you could

ever dream about. he can continue managing the conflict, thinking again and again and again, being democracy as achieving economic growth, managing the conflict is a good example for him, would succeed to do the same, but another anchor and cornerstone was added to this policy. with the recent observation of recent behavior, he wants to

perpetuate his government for the longer possibility. really obsessed with that and i will give you one example. everyone in israel, all of them including the finance minister insists two year budget, the case to israel, the only step in the world that starts with the budget is bahrain and israel did that twice and now he is bringing to the committee, when going back on the end of october, 2017, 2018, he was used

to be the finance minister. .. because according to israeli law the election will be, they will finish the term of this government. 2019 will be the election year so we doesn't have to pass a budget. he can continue from the previous year budget. another example, it really makes

imbalance of how you are all of us are not behaving as prime minister, which is ngo law. the ngo law, which is under democracy attacking also the society which care for human rights and occupation, et cetera. all the world was against him. this war that didn't give, relate to expulsion law or tens of loss of after the match -- but this law because of ngos it has some relation with europe as a state, most ngo stripping funded by foreign governments and foreign international for position. all of them suddenly well, this is a sense, this is democratic. okay. everybody talk to netanyahu.

john kerry came to the middle east. one of the reason was to speak with netanyahu about this law. he did nothing. why? a preferred the instability of his government over this pr that he used to make, give it some importance. he wanted, even surprise, still a little bit of surprise. israel has been drained or mistreated by the were. to think that everything can be done and they are okay with it. what sort the small matter like the ngo law, if the are 50 years of occupying others land,

oppressing 4 million palestinians, putting 1.8 million palestinians in the largest prison in the world in russia. who is punishing them? who is asking them? who is holding them accountable? so why should he be, really think that europe or the state will either be angry on them because of the loss of the ngo? again, it passed within two weeks, three weeks. this law actually had more time. because, you know because, because in the beginning, talk about having the representatives of these ngos coming to the knesset, on them like this, saying that they represent ngos that are funded by foreign countries.

jews labeling themselves, it was too much. so took a few weeks until they brought another, or draft of the law that took out all of this, it took out all of this labeling. towards the others, restrictions over such ngos remained. you know the was a satiric, israeli tv secure program -- satiric program that said israel 2035 and news opened with prime minister netanyahu declared -- [laughter] expected to remain. the second episode it was 27 or something. prime minister netanyahu, his

son, naked sun the upcoming prime minister. you know, but we also to see, this is very important again to try to think this society, that we are seeing continuously going to the record going more fanatic, more extreme. and as i said this will continue for the time that israel is not paying any price for its occupation or its denial international u.n. decisions,

international community that are not punished. not just not punished, and that they are escaping once, you know, every time with their declines. i was just discussing trying to remember our meeting with the du, many times trying to inactivate israelis associate member or nonmember state, something like that. but they had agreement, signed an agreement with the eu, getting huge benefits, huge economic benefits, okay? article ii in the agreement says that clearly that the parties shall respect the human rights.

they are not respecting human rights. it's basic. you know. you publish reports, including the u.s. government, the state department, about the human rights violations with israel. so inactivate this clause. not just that, they give them prices. you know, a year ago, 2020 horizon scientific cooperation agreement. the eu really enforced israel to guarantee him that the money will not go for the settlements. the money will go for the settlements. this is the maximum. so what happened is that the good part over the years, which was conceived to be right

liberal, almost secular party, during the days of the monotony bacon and followers -- menachem begin became right wing religious, almost they can be with, what's its name, the jewish, the study, on who is extreme more, who is supporting settlements more, who is building in the settlements more. and the settlers are very strong and organized, perhaps the most, the strongest in perhaps the most organized sector in society. and soon they will have their own militia. they already have their own militia. they have weapons. they trained in the role of

protecting the settlements, and they can decide in their into an election, the candidates for the knesset are elected which numbers 3500. to have the strongest and most organized group in the central comity. they decide, that's what every minister has to take them into consideration. they have, you know, they have seven ministers that are sitting by themselves, living in the settlements. living in illegal settlements. and they, in the meet presidents and they go and meet governments, foreign governments. you are illegal citizen of the occupied territories, that you should be with the draw from the according to the u.n.

resolution, et cetera. this is a major change in israeli politics. and we expect, of course, if you ask anybody 10 years ago, would you think or expect one day will be defense minister of israel, this is allusion, something that is inconceivable. that a mad fascist, vulgar, and the human rights, even i could see thief be defense minister of the state of his real. but this is the realities. he became. i met him, i can say that on tv,

i met him a few weeks ago to talk about the education system in community. ps mission of education. he spent first half-hour explaining to me how he will be netanyahu in the next election, as he sees himself as the next prime minister. this religious party -- [inaudible] the zionist religious because all are not zionists. this is the zionist religious. those who are the most from them, those seats of terrorists, jews come from, and from them or

from their grassroot evolves, putting practicing terror in those ranks, including those who -- [inaudible] to see himself legitimate, you know? as prime minister something amazing. you see how this society changed toward, it has become all the time mainstream. now liberal is mainstream. you know, i will have three minutes to answer the arabs but the most tense, explosive issue, that every time -- continue,

prevent netanyahu our challenge the conflict management of netanyahu. because it's enough, three days, the whole region, so those jews are used to ask to go out and pray 20 years ago, 30 years ago, were very marginal, small group that everybody thought that they are even mentally handicapped, trying to dance and going inside. now, this movement, the temporal movement, what they call it, is mainstream, have ministers representing them in the government.

ariel has wanted himself. see how it's very dangerous. the most explosive and there are ministers sitting in the government. you know, i mentioned almost all legislation were anti-palestinian and anti-arab. our jewish state practices are us since 48 didn't, we didn't wait that this should be legislated. all our land was confiscated. we are prevented from building and housing appropriate, these are building and housing policies.

our education system, all our infrastructure is really appropriate to islamists in the large cities in latin america. but still as ethnic minorities, collectively, though that we shall participate in this israeli political gain, and we shall go and try to represent ourselves in knesset, in the parliament, at least to bring our voice. at least to have the freedom to defend our interests in the most, at the highest level possible. in knesset give us the possibility. used to. and what's happening rapidly with these laws that we are

feeling that even this, in the margins of the israeli democracy, is getting narrower every day, that we might find ourselves in a position. i have said more than once in my speeches, guys, you are changing the game rules. we might decide not to play it anymore. this is not the game that we wanted to participate in. at least be able to stand here and speak. even this you are taking from us. at i suggest to take my words seriously, that the arabs might reach in very, very short time the recognition that participation in the israeli

politics, in the israeli election might really been become turning us as a fig leaf on that very democracy. this is for sure we don't want to be. we are not accused by many, you know, fractions in our society, that boycott the elections, that you are actually giving the israelis the best proof to save the world. you have knesset members. you should take part in the election. and comparison between those in trying to bring benefits to our people, to our society, to our locality, being knesset members, being represented in the knesset, all the time this was by far overriding this fear of

functioning or behaving like fig leaf. but now i think we are getting close to the point where collectively again the political will, such a decision will be taken unanimously. okay, but i think the conditions are on the ground and pushing us to where that decision, to boycott the israeli election and say to them, okay, clearly this is your democracy, not ours. this is your jewish state, not ours. go and play alone. i hope sincerely that we not reached that in that we will continue to feel that participating, political

participation is better for us. i hope so but i don't feel that this is the case. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. now we will move to the question and answer session. if you would like to make a quick comment or ask a question, raise your hand. i will acknowledge you and then wait just for a few seconds for the step to get to you the microphone, and then we will proceed with the question and answer. >> my question is regarding the israeli strategy in netanyahu's strategy. he talked about how netanyahu managing the conflict but i think there's a much deeper strategy that has been all along, which is the slow but

ethnic cleansing with in 1940 as well as within the west bank and gaza. we see that in controlling about 60% of the territory, supposed the future state of palestine. so the strategy is really israel controls the full resources 1948 and squeezing the palestinian population within it. and we see the dramatic decrease in population growth that you see their highest growth in the world. now it's probably, it's decreasing dramatically. so the israeli strategy is very clear. control demographics and squeeze the palestinians both in 1948 anand in 67, and then with that result in six years or not there's nobody to actually even talk to. we have very small minorities basically following the native indians in the u.s. so that someone had. so the question to you is, what is the strategic thinking on the palestinian side both in 1948

and in 67, given that this is really a strategy? the other part of the question is, well, isn't this really the strategic thinking ou of is to withdraw from the israeli politics completely? to what extent, we know the islamic movement has declared or parts of the elites of the northern part has declared that they're walking, they have walked out of that for a long time now. so is it is now becoming more and more common, and to what extent? thank you. >> go ahead. >> i agree with you that the israeli politics, as i said, the jewish state practices, included cleansing not on the west bank but also in '48. it's of course we are facing now

a sample of ethnic cleansing in the south. now as i'm talking to you there is a village next to it. everyday can be destroyed, demolished, and throat the way, that people with no alternative housing solutions. while, and this make hi this cae not just ethnic cleansing but apartheid, classical apartheid. they are taking out arabs come of those two religions, and these two, this tribe was brought to this area 60 years ago by the israelis. they confiscated their original and and brought it to this piece of land, in concentration policy at that time. i told him okay, this is now yours. now 60 years after their taking them out and building at the

same spot a new settlement for jews. even the supreme court judge rubenstein to his religious and not as right wing, the judge, told them but if you are building in this spot a new settlement, plan for the a few neighborhoods. make a solution for them. even him couldn't understand the sense of this policy of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. and now even if you see the pictures, they started construction work for the new jewish settlement, but seemingly because of all the pressure and they know if they're explosive, they didn't demolished yet the original village. so what they did, they built walls separate between the construction and old villages.

again, it's an amazing picture for apartheid. this policy is not in the west bank. this is not even in east jerusalem. this is against us. that being said, ethnic cleansing didn't succeed. from '67 up to now in the occupied territories. i mean, there's a number of palestinians, if we want, i hate to speak democracy but they pose a new, you asked me so we had to talk numbers. and inside israel we are now 20%. all demographics, zionist, you know, they tried to make the picture even, you know, vis-à-vis the israeli demography as being radical. so they put that in 2040, arabs,

and also will be 50% of the population. they combined us together as you know, than in treated jewish zionists, they are mental. in the galilee, despite the israeli not just policy but huge investments, they wanted jewish -- [inaudible] 55% of the galilee population are arabs. and the most important part of the galilee which is, what's called the district, 67% are arabs. i know that they see it as, they see us as enemies up to never israel treats zionist establishment as enemies. so you have your 67% of this

district full of your, not of your citizens but rather full of your enemies. so every time we start a new plan bringing jews, you know, sometimes the colonial mentality, start d.c. thing itself. they bring and build now new settlements in the galilee. you know what i ask against the national planning system, master plan. master plan wanted no more new settlements inside israel. but rather strengthening those who exist. they just make them come to the settlements are already in the galilee. jews started receiving the system by having twice those

benefits. when they came first to the galilee they enjoyed cheap land. they had lots of incentives to, to move. now they're moving to the upper, to the new settlement on the next mountain. there again, have cheaper land and cheaper loans for housing and all that. but real change in demography, that didn't happen. and i think this is good. why shall you be so much obsessed? and when you see that the labour party, those who were supposed to be a piece of partners of the palestinians, the only argument that the use toward creating two-state solution or creating policies is tomography. not for human rights, not justice, not palestinians. i can't put strategy.

i can do one thing. i can stay in my land and this is what we are doing. i can stick to my right. i can develop my community and my second and third generation to be proud palestinians, to have their identity to strengthen. this is not taken for granted. identity and our language and knowing our history is daily battle, yes. >> we have two hands on the side, halfway down the table. the young lady here first, please. please state your name and your affiliation. >> rachel oswald, reporter with "congressional quarterly." the obama administration is close to concluding a new 10 year by lessig assistance agreement with israel. we are expecting a to increase by at least a couple hundred billion a year. what impact will the cementing

of that aid have on the lack of pressure netanyahu feels to do a peace deal, recognizing that while the assistance is defense-related, it's fungible in that it will not require the israeli government to spend money in other areas in defense that, not because it has this money? >> i wrote that as an example but couldn't speak all my notes. that israel is now conducting understates negotiation, tough negotiation over the next few years. what does the u.s. and obama are doing in order to make any change in the israeli policy? i don't want to speak even in punishment or paying the price. you are now, you are now in the middle of the beginning of a new deal. how you are practicing your own

interest, because if two-state solution is defined by the way, and by the u.n. as international interest and u.s. interest, not because you love palestinians and you want to create for them, but because of your own interest as, you know, what you're doing in this deal, i this negotiating in order to protect the u.s. interest, nothing, and i will tell you that you will be signed. the contract will be signed and israel will not be held accountable of anything. even to ask israel to stop, not to evacuate settlements that didn't stop building in the settlements will not be a condition or a requirement. so why netanyahu to really make any complicated seriously and international pressure on him? >> okay.

go ahead. >> air of america. we can identify with you in your statement about lieberman because we have a guy in the kind that is running for president that's very similar to lieberman. but my question is can you talk about after the obama legacy, how does the presidential election, what do you think is the future as result of the two people who are running for president as far as the establishment of palestinian state in the future? how do you feel the election is going to affect that? >> perhaps -- since long time ago results of the american election do not have any impact on us. and perhaps this time the difference between the two candidates, not vis-à-vis the palestinian issue, no, but

vis-à-vis internal issues, make it some of interest just to, you know, see the media in order to, because there's like a performance going on, or theater performance. but i don't foresee really any impact. you know, yesterday we were meeting in the state department with deputy director of the palestine israel desk, and what of the participants introduced himself as being, working with u.s. envoy to the middle east. still something like that, not to insult anybody of course, but i didn't know really his name.

would remember martin and dyke being, but this -- martin and dyke -- doing what? even that came of that theater that was called in the last few years peace process a peace negotiation, netanyahu doesn't care even now to look like is even negotiating. he doesn't want that because if it has some sort of importance in the past, now he feels he doesn't have to pay that tax for the war, pretending to be engaged in peace process or in any kind of negotiation. the other theory of those who think that -- perhaps, to you or

any americans take that into consideration, if you like clinton or trump, but if trump comes perhaps the worst of it, worse than the situation that we have could increase. [laughter] >> could you pass the microphone over here, please? >> i'm with americans for peace now, says her organization of the israeli peace movement. my question is you spoke about a scenario in which palestinians made citizen of israel may disengage from electoral politics. and my question is whether they do or not, particularly if they do, what are the other avenues that they have to engage with the jewish majority in israel to still play this citizen hud gave in israel and to maximize their footprint, their citizen

footprint, citizen could footprint? in other words, to still play the game even participate electorally in the knesset. >> you know, i come from the party that had built its political project which very much became the whole arab community project, built into measure anchors. one is fighting and struggling for the state of israel to become a state for all of its citizens. this is something that we convey and see it as a solution for the jews and arabs in israel. because it's a civil democratic state that differentiates our separates religion from the state. it's for the best interest of all of us. not for the arabs. sometimes we forget that.

and the second anchor is to organize. the arab palestinian minority, and build our own institutions. i mean, national institutions. and be recognized as ethnic minority and having self-rule in all things that differentiate us, i mean, what so-called in our lyrical lexicon, the political autonomy, cultural autonomy. unfortunately we didn't engage enough in the second part of the project of real starting as one. we are one and a half million. we have the resources, human and

economic resources, to be much better to perform much better in our own interests. you know, if i compared ourselves with the west bank, or would gaza, economically speaking, average palestinian family has three times income in average more than palestinian family in the west bank and gaza. our economy is much weaker. we lacked industries. we lacked factories. we lacked any kind of organization. you will find unions for almost everything. they are much capable of working together as a society. we don't have that. we have only one thing, back in 1981 we created what's called

the arab comedy, which is great. symbolized something, that we have a roof or an umbrella that unify us but doesn't have money. the coffee in the office, they have no resources, not financial, nor human. it's a really haiti that in 2016 we have this. we have a huge mission to build our own institution, cultural institution, political institution. we have the demand develop and for many years to lift of our community. not just part of it but really to represent, you claim it is represent a minority. okay, go to election, very simple election. but with the potential of becoming a parliament, parliament for this autonomy,

cultural autonomy. i believe that this is the way for equal citizenship. this is not in the place or to replace citizenship. but what, you know, those who are democratic, israeli left zionists want us to assimilate, how you say, you know -- assimilate in real society. this is the way to be equal in the field equal and to practice as equal. once you are set aside with your national aspirations and give build your own society, this is not, because normally we are accused, if we go this way as your superlative. that you want to separate from the state. we are not talking not about geographic or political or any kind of autonomy.

we are talking about cultural autonomy. why shall my children live whatever come into schools, whatever the education ministry decides, and norm report on the comedies of the programs, you know, intelligence, israeli intelligence for entire people. we don't live up to now -- we don't know our recent history. we have to have the right to control or to practice our own a ton on such issues. even religious issues. taken religious issues. we now relate to a jewish department and religion ministry. so i see it this way. we are going stronger, building our own institution, demanding from the state a fair share of

resources and fair share in the power. our the third party technician, okay? what does this give me? real impact on the division of resources of the country. nothing. nothing. this last five year economic plan that netanyahu government decided on, and i can say that there is such a plan with 10 for 15 billion, okay, it was done not because of the arabs. it was done because of the jews, and i said years ago, i believe no that they want to develop the arab economy not because it's good for the arabs, but rather because it's good for the jews, because israel is now a member of the oecd and has to live up to certain standards of gdp, of poverty line, of et cetera.

and this is the only way to do it. not because suddenly this right wing fanatic government wants to make the life of arabs better. so this is the only way to integrate. integrate is better than assimilation to i want to integrate but as equal with my strong society organizations. not as individuals on the margins of the israeli politics. >> thank you, dr. ghattas, for your comments. too quick questions. can you speak a little bit about, specifically about the states increased targeting of people who are involved with bds related activity? you made some comments recently in montréal that got a lot of critical coverage in the israeli press about bds, given this sort of increased attacks on knesset members and people involved in bds activity. how do you see that developing

down the line? we know some of the things that were said by the intelligence minister earlier this year about targeted several assassinations or eliminations, referring to people who are involved in the ds type work. the other question i have for you is, last year, you were part of one party that ran on this joint list which was an unprecedented experiment. now a year and a half after that, how do you perceive the success of the experiment? and how are things working out with the parties in the joint list? >> would you pass the microphone down? >> thank you, dr. ghattas. i have also two quick questions. first, in the middle east now we see that there are allegations

about the jewish state. there are shared states and iran, tactically in iraq. do you think this is an area in the middle east what the sectarian states are prevailing? second question, which follows of this, after resolutions 181, 194 come and the other subsequent resolutions, do these resolutions consider israel as a jewish state per se, or a state for its citizens? ..

here i came in 2015 december so i'm very glad to be here today. i would like to thank them for the invitation. we wanted to host your colleagues and he talked to something similar as to what we are saying now and believes the arab advisor about the situation on palestine and how they are being treated. today i am asking again, maybe a

simple question, don't you think israeli is taking advantage again of the bad environment surrounding palestine's people, the division between the two, don't you think they are taking advantage of this so they treat other members in such way? plus the competition between the candidacy, the two of them are competing in their statement to protect israel. >> think you all for the question. i am especially happy about the question about vbs. i wish in the beginning, how much i see now, that's what

brought me back to washington and the importance of the national activism for palestine. i would say that perhaps in the west you undermined the impact of international activism on israel. i think it is very much important, much beyond the treaty impact. i will mention one of the major activities international activities to gaza, freedom of libya to break the siege. i'm -- remember there are

2 million people under siege. i joined last year one small ship, small. fifteen people we were. we were supposed to be five ships but then only one ship was sailing. i was sitting together with the only two arabs on the ship and those other international activists, we were strong and dedicated international activists with palestine. israel was, for a week, you know, in the newspaper as if the war ships of the fifth fleet are coming to invade. [inaudible] is how they now conceive the media as they exist in sheer enemy. truly, they should conceive it

like this because once. [inaudible] the legitimacy of israel and all the time they do not respect, demoralize and do not comply with international, should be treated as other and i told once , they weren't listening to us, you should be really concerned from the agreement with iran and the west but not because of the substance of the agreement but because of the mechanism that informs the agreement. this mccanna's him, i told them mechanism, i know it's not easy to boycott israel and put sanctions on oil but this is the way. i tell you, this is the way.

that's why the work of the media is very important, i know it has some substance and challenges in the issues that tried to criminalize such work, but this is the way to peace. you have had to overcome and protect yourself and be prepared about other issues, i was asked, i'm being told i only have one minute of course but the division between hamas, this is a devasting disaster, this this is the worst thing that happened to us. [inaudible] again, we have to face it by reviving the national project in the palace still palestinians all over the world. egypt tried and there are agreements between the two but

there's absence of political will between the two parties. in order to create this political realm, we have to revive the palestinian movement, we have to revive here in the states and also the arabs and the israelites playing a very important role in that. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for including us on this very busy trip of yours to north america and we wish you best and a safe trip back home and continued service of the human rights and civil rights on the half of the rights and civil rights of the people in palestine in general. thank you all for being here and we invite you to stay connected

with us with the center with regards to our future event, particularly the event on october 14 which will be a whole day conference on democracy in the middle east. that will be in conjunction with the university of denver and our friends at stanford university. thank you for being here again, we will see you soon, bye-bye. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] ,.

[inaudible conversation] >> sunday night on q&a, it was one racial lynching in the south. it was a brilliant psychological device to hold down a race because if you are black you were afraid this could happen to you. >> the author talks about his literary career including his latest book the lynching, the epic courtroom battle that brought down the clan about the trial following the 1981 killing of 19-year-old michael donald by the kkk in mobile alabama. >> michael was a teenager, he is trained to become a bricklayer

and is the youngest of seven children and he's home with his mother in his house and his aunt asked him to go get a pack of cigarettes, gives him a dollar, he goes out in this old buick pulls up behind him and jame tiger knowles pills out his pistol and orders him into the backseat. he knows when he gets in the car what's going to happen. a black man in alabama, you know. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span q&a. >> in june, british citizens voted to leave the european union in a nonbinding referendum. of forum hosted by the heritage foundation looks ahead at the challenges they face as the u.s. considers their trading relationship with the uk and europe. this is one hour 20 minutes. >> hello and welcome to the heritage foundation.

thank you for joining us all today. i just want to take the opportunity to remind everyone in house to turn off cell phones and for anyone watching online, you are welcome to submit questions by e-mailing speaker at heritage.org. dr. berman is an adjunct professor of strategic studies in the strategic studies program at johns hopkins university school of advanced study. he is a graduate of grinnell college, earned a master of arts in master of philosophy and his doctorate degree from yale university and relevant to today's discussion, the subject of his doctoral thesis entitled from empire to europe, material

interest, national identities and the british policy toward european inspiration, 1956 to 1963. with that i will handed over. >> thank you very much andrew. it's a pleasure to welcome you all to the heritage foundation here today for this panel on brexit, the next step to britain's independence from the european union. about three months of ago here of us several of us were here for up panel on the possibility of britain leaving the you eu. today it's a fact. on behalf of the heritage foundation, especially the margaret thatcher center where i work i would like to congratulate everyone who played

a part in that victory the vote of june 23 was in one sense a combination of a very long campaign but in another sense it was just the start of the process. we are here today to talk about that process. now since the vote on june 23, i observed one thing, if there is anything that people like to do is tell stories and since june 23, people in the u.s. and of course people in britain have been telling stories about brexit. before the vote i joked that brexit was like to become a new global warming, it would be blamed for everything that went wrong in the world and your personal life. first there were quick stories about how rex it was causing brexit was causing the economy to tank.

the british a common enemy -- the british economy isn't collapsing. it's funny, but i don't see britain as want to travel with us. i don't see them eating less chicken masala or quitting nato or any other organization. what i do see is british troops standing side-by-side with american forces in the poland and estonia. both left and the ignorant seem incapable of recognizing that brexit wasn't a vote against globalization, it was a vote against specific policies and actions undertaken by various british governments and the eu that were extremely unpopular. rex it does however herald the end of an era, the era that began in the late 1950s when

britain began to enter a decline for britain, after 1951 nine, europe wasn't nine, europe wasn't about broadening its horizons, it was about believing that the horizons were narrower. it was about believing the problems begin at home and that europe was. that believe wildly exaggerated stopped making any sense at all. i think everyone on this panel, myself included has been a critic of various british government since 1997. seven. but it is relative. would you rather have britain's terrorism's problems or france's terrorism problem. would you rather have italy's debt or britain's debt. would you rather have creases currency or the pound sterling. would you rather have germany's migrant problems or britain's? for britain, europe moved from

being an answer to a problem to simply being a problem. now course, bureaucrats don't see it that way. for them to answer to any problem is always the same, more europe. just two days ago our european commissioner, famous for his comments that said it's important you have to lie said national borders of the worst thing ever where are you eliin this world national borders are the worst thing ever, that's an exaggeration. i can promise you that although it's a low bar, everyone on this panel has a tighter grasp on reality then he. we will welcome for speakers and then do some q&a. the focus on regulation and

employment and free market. he is widely published and the author of several books including stealing and how government that tax are getting rich off you. he's also a board member of the american friends of the taxpayer alliance and an advisory board member of the young britain foundation. he was director of research for the uk department of transport, he received his mba from the university of london. he is widely published including an excellent essay, the future is bright, the future is global. he's a british and swiss citizen and has a degree in politics and masters degree from the city university of london he is a

roadmap from brexit. his essay will be available online very shortly. mary is the editor of human progress.org and senior policy analyst at the center for global liberty and prosperity. a common theme among our panelist, he was extensively published with major articles in almost every publication in the u.s. and overseas. he received his ba from the university in south africa and his phd in international relations from the university of st. andrews in great britain. finally wrapping up our panel and presenting up to perspective of capitol hill, we are proud to

welcome doctor coates. she is a an advisor to ted cruz and received her ba from connecticut, her her masters from william college and her phd in art history from the university of pennsylvania. after blogging on foreign policy, she worked for former secretary of defense donald drums felt before coming an advisor to rick perry and senator cruise. let me turn it over to this panel and "after words" we will take some questions. >> thank you for that gracious introduction. i should clarify for the record that i was not director of research, that was far and.

[inaudible] i was executive. [inaudible] in her majesty's transport. it's a delight to be back today and share with my colleagues some perspective. today rory and i are releasing the update toward 2014 brexit runner-up submission entitled cutting the not. it's called that for very good reason. the gordian knot, for those who are unfamiliar with the legend was a fabled knot in the city of asia minor so complex that no one could unravel it. in many ways, that is the perfect analogy for the situation britain now finds itself. it into white itself more and more into the tangles of institution, laws and regulations that is called the european union. now the people spoken they want

out. her majesty's government finds itself having to untangle that not but this time there is no alexander to slice it open with one swift swipe of the sword. we don't discuss to discuss the merits of brexit today. we talk about parliamentary sovereignty all you wish but the political reality that has been accepted by the new prime minister is that the british people were given the choice and chose brexit. it will happen. it's not to say that it could not prove to be a disaster. it could if her majesty's government makes all the wrong decisions. if they retreat to splendid isolation it will surely be a poorer place.

every principle of economics tells us that. there are forces in british politics that want to return us to the economic conditions of the 1970s. those of us that are old enough to remember can tell you they are mad for wanting them. they are unlikely to listen. that's why rory and i believe that it's important for the new ministry to set out quickly the vision of an open welcoming britain, one founded on well-established principles of free trade and free enterprise that will attract investment and do business on favorable terms with the entire world, not just the little corner that's called europe. what do we think needs to be done? how can her majesty's government cut that loss and step out on the road to becoming a successful economy as britain was in the olympic? first we believe they have to

invoke article 50 of the eu treaty that the matter of basic adherence to international law. go ahead and start unilaterally making new deals will still member of the eu would be a serious breach of the vienna convention and would make britain. [inaudible] we must be certain what this means. it will mean, according to article 50, the end of the application of the treaty of the convention and the state concerned. it is an irrevocable step. it is imperative that her majesty's government has their ducks in a row before they take this matter. when they invoke article 50, the uk and european council will negotiate the terms of the brexit not the commission although the commission may act on behalf of the council but the responsibility is given to the european council and that will certainly include the phasing out of the application of eu

programs, this trade arrangements with the party and other jurisdictions. it simply negotiating does not mean the deal is binding. article 50 requires the eu parliament to any deal. while the council is likely to be pragmatic, because it's composed of the government of the state with a lot to lose, the parliament may prove more political in its approach and could even prove indicative. in that sense the uk and the eu are stuck in a dilemma. there are reasons why each side might prefer to see the others think but the better outcome for both will occur if they cooperate. let's hope the eu leaders realize this and the uk leaders are tempted to ignore the realities on the ground. turned back to what the government must do to stop

pulling on the strings of this not. the first thing domestically will be the repeal of the various acts of parliament that entrenched the treaties of the european union into british law. if that is really just the first street, not is made up of rules and regulations, primary and primary and secondary legislation that is being coded into british law with the eu directives. the trouble is that the entire lot, as desirable as that may sound is probably not as feasible nor desirable. plenty of it would have been in code anyway, perhaps in a different different form and some of it represents global standards. there have been the practice of goldplating regulations where eu regulations have been made more onerous.

some sit say the parliament should look at all of these together and propose a great repeal bill or something similar. this would stop all of her other parliamentary activity thanks to the sheer volume of the law. we don't know how many laws and instruments there are but between 1998 and 2004, germany incorporated 750 directives in 18187 regulations into its legal code just in those six years. many of those were surely minor, for example making specific ways to measure. but that forces them to deal with them all at once. it can't be up to government departments. i am a refugee and i know how it works. civil servants are victims of the seen and unseen problem. they have interest groups lobbying them all the time, pushing the effects of regulation in front of their eyes.

they rarely consider the unseen effects or the dispersed costs around the country. i would wager that we would see less regulation repeal. that is why we need to look to a different model. i suggest that could be the successful model the united states has of successfully depoliticize them the contentious issue. it has, it takes the decisions to cleanse down military bases out of the hands of congress. the commission looks and holds hearings and then presents a package of closures to congress for an up-and-down vote. the congress either accept that decision or rejects it. they can't amendment amend it i think we need something similar with regulations in the uk.

that is why we proposed setting up a royal commission where the target is reducing it by 25% which would provide massive benefits for the uk economy and presenting reforms for the package on a whole. by these means we suspect the uk could start producing its regulations substantially within five years of brexit. the non- regulations could go. the regulations of value could be kept despite the lobbying. one final word important. another thing her majesty's government will have to decide very quickly is whether or not to apply for membership of this european economic area. [inaudible] many have described leaving the

ee a as the doomsday scenario and even free-market think tanks suggest that that member step is an acceptable solution. i even thought so briefly myself but then rory helped me pull myself together. it's unacceptable for three reasons and a couple reasons on the eu side. first it brings with it a significant degree of regulation certainly britain will be outside the common agriculture policy but plenty of eu regulation will come to apply. this time the uk will actually be without a seat at the table to negotiate the terms. this relates to the second problem. the eu has a democratic deficit which was a major concern of the voters. this will be made even worse by the uk just being a member of the eea. it is in talks with switzerland

over this deal right now. britain is not liechtenstein, however much i wish it was. the two motivating factors behind the vote was a desire to take control of britain's laws and orders. the eea may be many options but it's not bricks brexit in these terms. the european parliament has received advice that the correct way to achieve any associate membership for an existing member would be treaty change, not the use of article 50. article 50 and's' all application of the treaty, not just some of them. it is meant as a deterrent and cannot be treated cavalierly.

britain must leave the eu entirely. that is the road that presents the greatest danger but it's also presents the greatest opportunity and now rory will describe some of those opportunities. [applause] >> thank you very much and thank you to the heritage foundation for inviting me. it is the second time we have written such a plan. the first time was laid out what's believed to serve as economic affairs two years ago and once a british prime minister set a week was a long time in politics, i think we can agree two years is a long time and what have we achieved in that time? what i think we need to talk about now is the opportunity that the united kingdom has in embracing brexit.

we talked just now about the potential roads ahead and the potential pitfalls the united kingdom could potentially fall into. i want to address some key points and i think we are never shy in the bricks to address the challenging questions and certainly with the project still on our back, we were very keen to push the positives of brexit. this also goes to policy areas such as immigration, agriculture and investment. what we want to do in this particular report is to lay out for the british government what steps they can take to harness the potential and maximize the potential for britain in this new world. immigration was a particularly stark and contentious issue.

it remains so today. the united kingdom voted to take back control. that doesn't mean just take back control with a few safeguard measures here and there and ministers on the prospect, it actually means defining a system that fits the united kingdom, by the united kingdom for the united kingdom. to this we say there are benefits and what we term a carrot system. over the course of many years they have been called so many things and i don't have time to relate even half of them but what we propose and other people propose in a neutral system is

by no means the racist card that our opposition and our opponents have tried to cast us as. the idea of an immigration packed however, we believe has a massive benefit in alleviating the burdensome regulation that a state-sponsored points based system might generate. indeed we also believe that the current system as administered in our plan will allow for benefit to take into account the skills and income generated from the highly skilled individuals that come to the uk. ultimately we want to generate a system where the best people from around the world want to come to britain, can come to britain and find their home in the united kingdom. as a result, i think the current

system lays out a plan for this without the state-sponsored burden that other proposed national neutral plants might generate. the second point i would like to raise is the opportunity of agriculture. the world is in a protectionist throw when it comes to the agricultural sector, whether it be countries around the world, non- eu and eu, there are significant improvements that can be made and generated through with free market approach. what ian and i have done is look at these approaches, look at other countries who have is ministered protection measure and actually seen the limitations of such approaches in comparison to one guiding light. that guiding light is new zealand. the new zealand option has

figured out the way we should proceed with regard to agriculture. it is a free market approach that has embraced dualism and embraced free market and embraced innovation and change. ever since the 1980s when the the new zealand government said no, the new zealand farming sector has thrived. it hasn't just thrived because of the innovation that's being generated from a it thrived because new zealand as a country has reached out to new markets and embraced new potential. as a result, new zealand stock index has populated 10% of its agriculture. it has been so successful it is one of the top two industries in new zealand and with the united kingdom's branding power on the world stage, i believe such things as british beef newly introduced into the united states and indeed other such

materials can have a great branding prowess on the branding stage. so the big one, investment. it was through project that we were told sdi would finish. foreign investment would die on the brexit vote. well the opposite has been true. two months to the day that britain voted to leave the european union, there have been 54 separate deals accumulating roughly 38 billion u.s. dollars. now that to me does not seem like a slippery slope. indeed, i think it is something to embrace and in this plan, i think they embrace a free market approach.

[inaudible] it can keep its people and trading partners, with one final thought on that, trading partners is key in this particular realm. we have friends in the united kingdom and around the world there is a whole range -- the whole referendum was put on the table. we have friends around the world in part from the isolationist position that some of them advocated, we believe that the united kingdom, through maximizing its global potential through financial services and health plans can become a greater trading nation it embrace the open seat. as a result i commend the publication and its revised

version and as ian said you can download it online. thank you very much. >> thank you very much to all of you and thanks to heritage for putting this together. let me first congratulate ian and rory on a thoughtful and informative paper. i am very grateful for the office for their valiant effort in finally explaining to me the difference between the european council, the the council of the european union and the council of europe which are all different and if you can grasp the distinction between the three then it should be a walk in the park. joking aside, the paper does provide an excellent service and

outlining the different challenges that britain faces in extricating itself from the eu and the auctions before british lawmakers in making those challenges, in meeting those challenges. i have known ian for many years and i'm happy to report we see eye to eye on most things and as such i don't have any serious disagreements with the paper which are based on clear and time-tested free-market principles. that is also a rick. for most people, they do not see the world through the prism of free market economics and may pursue policy that will not result in further liberalization of the british economy or optimal results for british people. in fact, the possibility of backsliding on economic liberalization was always, in my

view, the best argument raised. put differently, all the good suggestions that ian and rory offer in policy reform after brexit may go on needed and yet i firmly believe that brexit was a risk worth taking. centralization of power in brussels, just as centralization of power in washington increases the risk of systemic failure. a wrong policy is enforced for everyone, be it high federal tax taxes in the u.s. or a poor euro in the eu, everyone will suffer. just as the concept of state powers here in the united states

has been tossed aside in favor of more decision-making at the center. there is a strong case for maximum policy autonomy of the smallest possible territorial units in jurisdictions which are much better suited to react in a timely fashion and rapidly challenging circumstances in a highly competitive global economy. as opposed to relying on large cumbersome units which suffer from competing preferences and collective action problems. a free-trade deal between the eu and canada, for example, is held up by romania, of all places. so yes, britain may opt for policies but that will be a useful lesson for other countries, whether they are happy in the you or whether they

are thinking about leaving the eu. whatever happens in the uk, the eu will probably never be the same. i think there is a likelihood that we have seen this coming and going of what one might call the p eu. prior to the referendum, british voters were subjective to barrage of warnings and criticisms about what would happen to the british economy and the british people if britain left. experts, foreign and domestic, said recession and urged voters to remain. britain would be isolated and they might even lose it seat on the united nations council. their response was mild in measure. to everybody's surprise, much of

the blame for the british withdrawal was placed on the head of the bureaucrats in brussels. for example, the estonian president said the behavior had been abominable. they said the european institution starts to admit they made a mistake and at least part of the leadership should set aside. they reacted to european policy and nobody has the right to be angry with the british votes. the czechoslovakia prime minister said it was not the right decision together for countries called for the eu

executive to be arraigned. [inaudible] soon the engine of european integration from france and germany, only only a week after brexit the french prime minister stated that everything will be on the table when negotiating with the british, implying that britain would be offered, if it wanted membership of the single market in terms acceptable to the british electorate. i agree with ian that shouldn't in fact be an option. the republican candidate have called for new balance of power between brussels and they have advocated for the training of the powers of the commission. why did that happen? great britain may be leaving the

eu but it has not fallen off the edge of the earth. the country still remains the fifth-largest economy and it still remains the fifth-largest military power. it is in the interest of all of its trading partners that written is safely anchored in an international economic system. out of the eu, britain will still be a recipient of 10% or rather germany will still account for 10% of the imports and france will account for 6% of british imports. similarly, similarly, in or out of nato, britain remains an important military power and the second most important member of nato. as such european country, especially in poland and the baltics will do whatever is necessary in order to keep britain happy in order to beat vladimir putin russia. national interest of the european countries vary greatly.

some countries, for example are much more fearful than russia than france or portugal. the national interest of the eu members intersect in one way. they all want a good positive relationship with britain. some will want it for commercial reasons, someone it for reasons of national defense. puts it simply the objective of the latter is the pursuit of an ever closer union and they are willing to punish those who make the achievement of that goal more difficult. the national identities of the european states have been in competition with each other for hundreds if not thousands of years. the vast majority of the

european people, for them being european remains a geographical, not political distinction. that is because people's identities are not formed, at least in europe by attachments to abstract principles of liberty, equality, fraternity and such but bicultural religious and historical ties. in conclusion, the reactions of the european states the outcome clearly shows that the national interest and consequently the nationstate remain the basic motivation and basic building block of international relations and european relations and likely to remain so. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you for these fascinating perspectives. i don't want to take a lot of time this afternoon because i'm really here to learn. congress has been in session only very briefly since brexit took place. they are coming back to work in two weeks, run for your lives. [laughter] so this will be a real opportunity. we can explore some ideas as both a historian and a practitioner of democracy, i am am acutely conscious, particularly in recent months of the challenges the democracy presents but at the same time, it has been wonderful to see a very positive example of democracy in action and what we very much want to explore on the hill is the opportunity that this presents to us and as ian was talking about the gordian knot, i was was thinking at that

moment from when young alexander the great was confronted with the knot. his genius idea to slice it in half was only just the first step. he then had to go on and conquer asia. so i think brexit can stand as the moment of the slice but the conquering of asia is very much what your new essay addresses and i think for us, as we look at your conclusions and your path forward, in some ways it's a cautionary tale. the notion of this unbelievable burden of regulation that has come out of brussels and has tangled up your own system is something we have to be intensely conscious of as we proposed new legislation here and predictions are very difficult about what our political makeup is going to be going forward. the thing i found myself

reflecting on as our critical role is to redefine what free-trade means, the concept of free trade has been demonized relentlessly over the course of the last year and it has turned into basically a dirty word in american politics. i do think we need to accept some probability in that situation. i think both the atlantic and pacific trade deals like the eu were for greater freedom, greater economic interaction but as someone who is familiar with both of those deals, and anyone else can tell you that is not the case, the liberal agenda of regulation of environmental reform, of labor reform has crept in and permeated these deals to the point that they are, in many ways antithetical

to free-trade. as we look at brexit and what is now possible, and this is something that senator cruise was very pleased to take the lead on, both in terms of the letter to president obama and also in his op-ed in the times but he also made this argument that great britain should be at the front of the queue for a free trade deal, not at the back. what opportunities opportunities does brexit pose to us in congress and beyond to redefine free trade and look at what a bilateral deal between the u.s. and the uk might look like and how that can be explained to our relative population as a tremendous opportunity for both our countries. another idea i think we should take very seriously is looking beyond geography as a determining factor if we are going to look at multilateral deals.

what i might want to do with great britain might be much more similar to what i might want to do with japan or what i might want to do with greece or vietnam. i think there are opportunities with all of those countries for free trade expansion but it's not going to be a one-size-fits-all. if we insist on looking at asia and north america as our boundaries, i think we lose sight again of an opportunity. i would also like to reflect on the positive developments in terms of armageddon not happening in the uk of which we are all very pleased but the world did not end and again i think that's a powerful reminder that prioritizing the status quo and commodities that are in somewhat short supplies, there can be worse things, the status

quo is not necessarily our ultimate goal. the change, while disruptive, can be positive and so what i would like to leave you with is really a challenge to all of our friends at heritage as well as our friends in the uk to spend the coming days, weeks, months, the end of this congress and beginning of the next one, looking at what the free-trade deal between the united states and the united kingdom might look like. i'm struck by your comments on immigration, i think this is going to be one of the great challenges to all of our nations as we move forward. i was also very heartened by what lori said about the financial sector potential. i think that could be one of the great unifying elements that could bring the uk in the united

states even closer together. i don't take up any more time that we can use for questions but i think if we can pursue this idea, this can be a really valuable experience. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you victoria and think you to all the panelist. i'm going to take the moderators liberty and asked the first question is will take questions from the audience. i'm just going to ask ian and worry and marion to take up victoria's question about the possible structure and nature of the u.s., k free-trade agreement and the broader question of if it best uk deal or a revised or north atlantic free-trade deal or a worldwide democracy free-trade area. there are lots of possibilities which you are familiar with. can you talk both about the

content of the agreement and the broader nature of it? >> i think there are lots of different ways this could go. what's very interesting is when they looked at this issue back in 1999, the benefits to the uk in the u.s. are actually surprisingly low as a result of the free-trade deal and that's because we are ready have largely free-trade between the uk and the u.s. there were just a few tariff barriers that needed to be reduced. the big question is nontariff barriers. that's where i think there has been an increase in nontariff barriers on both sides since those days. i think any free-trade agreement would have to concentrate on

nontariff barriers. there i think the best thing to do would probably be to look at nontariff barriers through the prism of regulatory equivalents rather than harmonization. as victoria was saying, what has happened with trade deals over the past 15 years or so, if you notice, american free trade deals have stopped being trade deals. they are now partnerships and things like that. they're not free-trade deals. that's because what they've done is they have just harmonized the regulatory burden on both sides. it's really still there, it's just on both sides. so i think what would be helpful is for us to return to the good old federalists idea of regulatory competition and recognize that regulatory systems are equivalent but they

don't have to be harmonized. they can be in competition with each other so we can find out, we can experiment and find the best system of regulation, the one which provides the most benefit in the lease burden. that's the way i think free-trade agreement between the uk and the u.s. should concentrate on those areas. in terms of the potential structures, yes obviously a bilateral uk, u.s. free-trade agreement is certainly possible and i pick we could be more ambitious. we suggest a couple other ideas. the possible expansion to the north atlantic free-trade area also including if ireland should choose to join us, that sort of

thing but then again there's another idea they just. [inaudible] they would be open to anybody who met certain criteria. they just develop this idea recently and suggest this be done by act of parliament in the uk. the parliament just said that anybody who met the certain criteria would be eligible to completely free trade with united kingdom and that would be a good way of quick starting the idea of a free trade association i think there's many ways this can go but having no terrorist

barrier. >> there was also a hampton truss paper published and that was of universal free-trade, the idea so takes out of the hands of government in putting particular favorable faces on what is being done in financial services or whatever and that allows the market to drive competition and markets to drive the mark. :

then they're going to fall on your face yet again and again and again. and so if the uk can adopt some equipment measured with united states, the good work that you've done, the heritage foundation is also borne out some of those ideas, then that would be absolutely fantastic. but i think the big aim, and more global aim, might be to work towards universal free trade where government is in effect out of the equation with regards to the safeguard

measures and tariffs a nontariff barriers. it allows the market, the consumer to find and drive demand. >> i have the feeling that will be entirely unsympathetic to marion. >> britain is facing abundance of riches. they can choose anything from patrick's unilateral liberalization of trade with the rest of the world where by britain will simply abandon all tariffs on imports, thereby making imports in their manufacturing productivity much lower and, sorry, much less expensive and output much less expensive, therefore much more competitive. that you got on the one hand. on the other hand, the nightmare scenario is really all, not all that bad. the nightmare scenario is you are stuck with wto. wto rules, what do they mean? they made up a average tariff on

manufactured goods out about 3.5%, applied on agriculture goods at about 10%. all of that can be offset through better domestic economic policies in britain including a large corporate tax cut. so abundance of riches. >> i would just point out that for the sake of the audience that if there's any country that historically has lived up to the idea of being a genuine free trading nation, it's britain. from the middle of the 19th century up to depending on where you want to put it, the 1920s or the 1930s. in britain is almost uniquely positioned in the world to do this because it has relatively few domestic natural resources and, therefore, structurally has to be a big importer of a lot of raw materials. which means that the more tariffs you put on raw materials than you import, the more you disadvantage your own manufactured exports and we

exports. so from structural point of view, people talk about free trade as being a pie-in-the-sky kind of idea. it's almost uniquely easy thing uniquely beneficial or britain to be free trading because import a lot of raw materials and special a lot of food and it has to do so. so taxing imports is taxing yourself. other countries i personally think good for f1 but especially easy in uk. >> just a quick note to say that some of the largest imports tariff cuts over the last 50 years have happened unilaterally. india and china have liberalized their import regimes before they joined the wto, serving in china's case. they've done so before -- they realized it was the thing to do. unilateral is not a crazy idea. it happens everyday. >> just add one thing. act in the days when britain was unilateral free trader, the nascent labour party was very

strong in favor of free trade because they recognized the significant benefits that accrued to the work you as a result of free trade. >> i'm not sure how many collections the left, because it wasn't just the labour party of course, i'm not sure how make elections the left and great britain won based on cheap food or no taxes on the. it was a significant number. if i don't like i it went to my bridge in actual history and come up with several of them. victorino and any comments you would like to make on the exchange so far? >> really for the congressional perspective i think the most important point i would like to make is that while universal free trade is an important philosophical ideal and a goalpost, that our immediate opportunity really is to work on something bilateral. i take your point that we largely have free trade and that's what i think the financial services sector is an opportunity in these terms.

but that in an effort to reclaim from these partnerships, whatever they are, that if we need principles to become a the basis of what we are trying to do with free trade we need to start with something practical and specific. congress does best in the world. the broad philosophical world. >> i think unfortunately that's probably a fairly delicate one for all of us to bear in mind going for. let's open up to questions. i believe with microphones in both files. if, when you raise your hand i will call on if you can state your name and your affiliation, if any. i would ask they plan to keep questions brief and in the form of an actual question. thank you very much. the gentleman right there. thank you. >> david fitzgerald, retired

takes department. i would like to go back to the question of the schedule for the brexit move, whenever that's going to be happening. rather than talk about free trade per se. it struck me particularly from the comments of the and, whose lasting i can see, but you talk more about, sounded more to me like it was salami slicing rather than cutting the gordian not. i think imagine even a five year projection for 25% reduction in the regulations that the uk would be subject to. that doesn't sound to me like the rhetoric of two months ago, three months ago about what brexit really was going to be. it looks to me like we are going to be into a different fac phast it's going to be something that is going to get sorted peter out over the decades. could you comment on that? >> there is a timetable laid out

in article 50 which is from the invocation of article 50. the clock is ticking and your two years to negotiate whatever deal can be negotiated in that time. it didn't is concluded by the council with the concept of the european parliament. so that's why i suspect, given how long trade agreements normally take, the quickest trade agreement in recent years was between australia and the uk, and that the just under four years to complete. you are not going to get a comprehensive trade deal done with eu in that two-year period. that's what i suspect that the deal will actually be much more about the phasing out of the eu programs within that two-year period.

and also, the very contentious question of what happens to the eu nationals, resident in the uk and the eu residents national in the eu. so i think that's what that two-year period will take. the fact is that there is just such a huge amount of regulation that has been imposed on the uk as a result of the eu. and the question of what we did that anyway. i think realistically you have to look at a longer time period for repealing the regulation. i suspect that there will be a prioritization within government, and that the government departments will be asked to come up with the regulations that can be got rid of quickly, even if they don't go for the regulation reduction commission that we suggest. so there may be some movement very quickly, but i think just

realistically it's a huge task ahead of the government. >> it certainly is. given the weight of eu law over the past 40 years, it's a real challenge for any government or any future governments to unwind. i would just point out in terms of making a trade deal that it hasn't happened for say a fully fledged member of eu, has been a member of the eu for 40 years has left the european union. as a result of the united kingdom has currently all the regulations need theoretically to make a trade deal. the eu has 42 other trade deals around the world currently with countries as different from mexico to south korea, south africa, et cetera. so the uk has unique position in this respect that already there are regulations there that will

allow it to make a free trade deal in a more appropriate timescale that in comparison to maybe others have taken, 10 years or whatever. the other part of it is, if we invoke article 50 we are still under the umbrella, so you could theoretically or at least legally from day one start playing around with regulations that we would wish to repeal in due course. so that also is the time consideration to think about because as a result, we would be unable to change with a dramatic potential upside both in regulations that the ecj tends to preside over in that two-year process. >> the gentleman seated right on the aisle there. >> i'm david smith of the guardian.

you may be aware nigel farage is going to speak at a double trump rally tonight. just interested in your instant reaction to that. you think he can help trump in the election? into deep as somebody seek deeper parallels between the brexit campaign and the trump campaign? >> do you have a comic? >> common? >> thankfully i'm not a u.s. citizen. i don't vote in the u.s. and i'm very glad about that this year spirit and i'm afraid the same goes for me. the parallels i think maven overdone between trump and brexit. this sense is, however, i do see one parallel in the u.s the u.se uk and that's how they be reported. not naming any state run media in the united kingdom, but they tend not to get out of london albeit they are based in south

fourth. thethey give you have an opinion based upon the london metropolitan elites rather than talking to countrymen throughout the united kingdom. i see in many respects in the u.s. media concentrating on what's happening on the hill rather than what's happening in other parts of the u.s. so that's something about the campaign that may be reflective from the uk to the u.s. i don't know, however, how broadly the parallel between trump and brexit apply. >> there are parallels, sure, but there is a fundamental difference. there's the entire political establishment in great britain with possibly exception of the far left has embraced free trade as the future of the united kingdom, and stands behind it and wants to have more of it. were asked in the united states we are seeing both leading candidates basically opposing and dissing it.

i think that's a terrible, that would be a terrible choice come november. that is the fundamental difference, which makes the election in the united states, say, more dangerous. >> i'll just add one final point to that, that i've given up trying to project the results of elections are referenda because it's been proven to be quite conclusively that people who know something about these things, they are as good at getting to go wrong as everyone else is. but i will say if any candidate in the u.s. achieves the 52% vote share and 35% turnout, they would've done rather well. i don't want to sort of predict anything terribly tasty, but i think that the winning margin all overall total vote in the united states come november is going to be a good deal less satisfactory and sizable band the winning outcome in the brexit referendum was. and, therefore, i'm probably

inclined to take the outcome of the referendum very seriously because it demonstrated a pretty sizable consensus on a very large vote share and a big turnout. may be that those able and something they should pay attention to. >> i would just like to concur, that the importance of both london and washington listening to the rest of the uk and the united states is vital, and i think that is a great lesson to learn from, from both of these events. >> the gentleman seated right in the absolute center of the auditorium. >> thank you. i'm david, retired. the impression i got from coverage of the brexit vote is that a lot of the vote was basically in a position to calls

for refugee immigration, specifically by u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon. and i'm wondering how the brexit vote is going to impact britain's response to calls for refugee immigration from the u.n. and other international organizations? >> from my understanding the international trade or international obligations that we have regarding refugees are unchanged by the brexit vote. and, indeed, there is a wide issue with the european union of migration concerning refugees and so-called economic migrants. the question is how many have been coming through syria into the european union who are genuine refugees, or who are in deep economic migrants? that's the question for the european union to solve in that respect. there was it away a vote in the brexit vote about immigration,

but ultimately the vote was to take back control of the ability to make our own immigration system. and now we have voted to leave the european union. that ability to make an immigration system is now there. it's just a matter of which immigration model we adopt. it our particular paper we put forward the immigration care of model, which is national neutral, looks to identify skills and qualifications, and as a result, hopefully if elected him would attract the best and the brightest from around the world. but as a result of the brexit vote i believe that the other international obligations concerning refugee status and alike has changed whatsoever. >> not the sort of add a coda to the there've been a lot of commentary especially in the united states but also in the uk wizard extent on the immigration

migration issue. i don't want to go into the whole detail but you have to look back at the history of immigration into the uk really since the late 1990s. shortly after tony blair's government comes in a 97 you see a very substantial surge, a very large surge of immigration into the uk. almost immediately you begin to get promises from politicians, first labor, then conservatives saying yes, the numbers are too high, it's too rapid, we are having providing schools and hospitals and housing. and yet the numbers continue to climb. this happened for about 20 years. over the course of that time, promises were made by every political party and the consensus was about 80% that immigration was too high. almost a universal consensus. only on the very far left of the

spectrum was there a rejection of the consensus. so to the extent that immigration was a significant factor in the referendum vote i don't think he was a syrian issue, although i'm sure there were anxieties about the middle east. i think it was a reaction to almost 20 years of very high immigration coupled crucially with promises that were never kept by politicians from all parties that they would do something about it. if they had done something about it, perhaps the referendum vote would have gone another way. but they didn't answer the referendum vote went the way it did. the result is now exactly as rory and iain laid out, that people have said usage or to control the situation, you haven't so we will control it for you. well, now britain is going to have the power to define its own system. i think the system that yemen and rory have laid out is certainly with a lot of very careful consideration -- tremblant and rory -- and would

allow the uk to remain open which i think is vital, to talent and skill and entrepreneur lists from everywhere around the world. that's vitally important. >> just one more point which is relevant to the refugee issue in relation to the immigration tariff. people who are fleeing countries spend an awful lot of money, they pool resources in order to get out of those hellholes. the trouble is at the moment that money is going to criminals who then have known compunction of putting them to see in leaky boats that sink. and other terrible, terrible things that any humane person would utterly condemn. and immigration tariff basically takes, says he will still pay some money but it will go to the

government that you are, of the country that you wanted to come to. and almost as a hedge against the possibility that you would use their welfare system. so by our calculations the immigration tariff would actually provide significant benefit not just terms of human capital but also as a resource string the governments, that they continues to do with any other immigration issues that come up. >> i think we have time, unfortunately, for only one more question so let's take a question from a gentleman in the back. >> i was just curious if the panel to describe what you think brexit will do to the political legitimacy of the eu, particularly as relates to some countries who have been looking to get into the eu for the past 20 or so years. >> that's a very interesting closing question. let's let rory and iain deal

with that first. >> i think a lot, the entity that would depend on what direction the eu takes. i think marion laid out a very possible scenario that we've seen peaks and perhaps the eu might itself become serious about things like subsidiarity. if the eu adventures in its record about subsidiarity, the brexit vote may never have happened. so what we may see is an eu that is more responsive to the demands of its member states and less controlling of them when they enter. the former prime minister of the czech republic point out that he'hehad spent years repeating a

soviet laws, and then when he joined the eu he had to start reimposing them. so it's treatment is seriously clear, and that's not a big problem. at which point i think the eu becomes more attractive to new nations that it is at the moment. >> i do agree with that, but i would also note that over the past few days chancellor merkel, president hollande and others have met off the coast of italy to discuss the future direction of european union. this cannot be a click. the european union cannot insulate itself with its three prominent members defining terms or other member states. a need to learn from their mistakes and actually broaden as iain said, to take consideration to others on the council. ultimately, if they don't that might go the way of the league

of nations, which effectively had the same scenario with the united kingdom and france looking to exert their power without taking any consideration for the other member states. so the eu does have a choice between heightened centralization and defined by a click, or indeed pooling, giving power back to member states and allowing for accession states, states that may still wish, god help them, to join the european union. they are confident that they'll actually listen to. >> i guess my response to that would be the of the big new sessions going to come from, leaving aside all the questions? i don't think the negotiations with turkey had ever been serious. ukraine to my mind is probably a very long way away from being able to join the european union. yes, there are balkan

possibilities, but where is the next big area for growth for the eu? leaving aside all of the questions. i always like to end on an optimistic note. the existence of the euro is an insufferable barrier to any really serious great turn of control to member states, even if the user desires to do such a thing, and there is not a particle of evidence to support the belief in my view, that it generally has a sincere desire to support a greater degree of sovereignty, creation states. even if it did the euro is going to exercise a compelling pressure to clamp down even more tightly on remaining nation-states. for fear of being another greece. i am perfectly willing to hope for the best but, unfortunately, in this case i fear as i have in the past for the worse.

let me ask marian and the tory if they would like to make any closing comments. >> i think the eu will still remain a desirable place to be a member of for countries which are very poor and which are very poorly run. belarus at some point, president poroshenko at some point will die. georgia would love to join unsure. the question is whether the eu can retain the prosperous well-run countries which also infuse the european institutions with a certain level of accountability such as it is, or if you will, good governance and opposition to corruption and so on. if denmark goes, if holland goes, if sweden goes, then you are really stuck with southern and eastern per european states

and the eu becomes something very different. and, finally, in terms of what will the eu look like. look, getting out of the eu or opposing the eu does not mean that you are an ultranationalist with are an ultranationalist or that you believe in isolationism. the discussion is about supranational versus intergovernmental. if you can return to intergovernmental way of doing things, you also gain immediately democratic accountability. because if a government of the united kingdom or sweden that signed up to a certain treaty, they have to have the support of the public that has elected them. if they lose that support the country withdraws from that particular treaty. that's very different from supernatural are doing things where the eu tells you about the way that you pay and, therefore,

it has no democratic legitimate. more intergovernmental is him implies greater democratic accountability and i think this is the way we are going. >> i was just close by saying i think the great challenge to the eu is to define its russian that i was very struck during the debate, when they said any proponent of brexit could go towards the graveyards of fort worth you. and that rationale, preventing another massive land were injured, which is what spawned the european project, is not a rationale in 2016. if the leaders of the eu are still using, keeping germans out of paris as their prime goal, i think we have larger problems on our hands. i think that then becomes the challenge to the eu to figure out what is the purpose of this in a 21st century context. >> i think that's a really good point i wish to close. let me thank iain, rory, mary

and victoria for the wonderful contributions today, at all of you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> and now quickly to pro forma session of the u.s. senate. the 13th since mid-july. these brief nonlegislative meetings are necessary every three days since congress did not a great on an adjournment resolution for the summer break. live now to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., august 26, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable james lankford, a senator from the state of oklahoma , to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on tuesday, until 9:00 a.m. on tuesday, >> the senate finishing up a brief pro forma session.