i call upon the minister where i assured her that we will look very seriously at the proposal the scottish government is bringing forward, i welcome the back that they have been looking at their priority, we've been encouraging all administrations to look at their priorities so they can be taken into account in the uk negotiations upon leaving the european union and there is already a structure in place to enable us to discuss these. the jn cen will be meeting in early january, it's been meeting regularly with my right honorable. state for exiting european union and there will be a third session of cleaner in january, this is, normally you would only meet once a year but we are accelerating the number of meetings, increasing the number of meetings precisely so we can engage in this administration from these issues. >> john redwood. >> when people in the opposition are in business say that we should make compromises by offering money or some control over our walls or borders , does the prime minister agree that bidding against our country, taking a good deal more difficult to achieve and

misunderstanding what the majority vote is for. >> i say to my right honorable friend what i would agree with you that what the public wanted is us for us to get on and get the best possible deal. for me, to leave european union is to deliver the best in doing that and it's right that we don't get up every detail of our negotiations because if we did, that would be the way to get the worst possible deal. >> on friday, together with honorable members from hampton i met with utc aerospace which is employing 1600 people in high-volume manufacturing jobs. that company raised its membership in the european aviation safety agency. when the prime minister says brexit means brexit, does he mean we will no longer participate in the european aviation units and other

agencies such as the european medical agency and many others? >> minister. >> it surprises me because we need to look with great care and consideration at the wide range of our relationship with your so we can say in time before we reach article 50 that this is exactly the work that the department exiting european union is looking, looking at the range of organizations, some of which are in the european union, some of which will not be membership in the european union and making adecision and crucially, talking to each sector about what is important to them that we understand what really matters to business . >> lily. >> welcoming my right honorable friend in thorough preparation before triggering article 50, which she agreed with me that a speedy conclusion of the subsequent negotiations would be in this country's interest both to put an end to something uncertainty and because

according to the office of budget responsibility, every week, additional delays in leaving the eu cost this country to hundred 50 million pounds next week. >> minister. >> as i said in an earlier response to the opposition, the treaty sets out for a potential two-year process of negotiation . how long along that two years is necessary to take for the negotiations is a matter of the progress those discussions support so i say to my right honorable friend i think he makes a valid point about the sooner certainty can,, the better that will be for business but of course we need to make sure we are getting the right deal for the united kingdom. >> prime minister, then maybe she could tell us with some certainty when her plans for exiting the european union she has agreed to put into place and it's going to be ready, presumably it would be sometime for she triggers article 50.

>> sir william. >> thank you mister speaker. in the joint statement to 15 december, the president of the european council and of the european commission and the heads of state of all the 27 member states unanimously insisted and i quote, access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms including freedom of movement and thereby the court of justice. as my right honorable friend agree that such an ultimatum is both unacceptable and will not be accepted by the british people? >> i've settled along that i believe part of both to leave european union while underlining that was

regarding the people have control over immigration so decisions on immigration can be made by the government in the united kingdom and we should deliver on that. i look at these issues in terms of the deal that we want to negotiate in terms of the outcome we want which is the best possible deal for trading. we and operating within the single european market but doing that mentoring with the other respondents which is british law here in immigration. >> thank you mister speaker. and i'd like to thank the prime minister for her statement, but following the european council, didn't appear to the prime minister admitting our country not just out of the european union but also out of the single market and the customs union, neither of which were on the balance last tuesday. >> if instead, if instead remains had one by a whisker, with the government have had a hard remain? would mister cameron now having stood there spouting

against the euro and shamed him and wilsey agree that is ludicrous as it sounds, it is no more ludicrous than the extreme rewriting ofthe referendum results that she now thinks imposes on the british people . >> prime minister? >> the majority of the vote at the referendum was forbidden, the united kingdom to leave the european union. that is what we will be delivering. once again, once again, the right honorable gentlemen raises questions about means rather than ends. what we want is the best possible outcome in terms of the relationship with the european union. we have had full communicate with the op european union as operating within the european union, that is where our focus should be, and processes to get there. >> sir crispin blunt. >> does the conclusion of the

strengthening of its relationship with ukraine meet its current challenges, how strongly does she expect the government to work with ukraine after we accept the european union? >> the european council was very, was concerned with and wanted to ensure that we had that continued relationship with the ukraine. the uk has already supported the ukraine in a number of ways and obviously when we left the european union we looked at our continuing bilateral relationships with countries across the european continent but we are already finding money for example to establish a national anticorruption bureau in the ukraine, supporting energy reform in ukraine to reduce russian gas, we are offering defensive training to ukrainian arms forces and supporting internal reform of ukrainian ministry of defense we already have a number of areas we are supporting the ukraine and obviously we

would i expect to continue to want to have that bilateral relationship with ukraine. >> could the prime minister update us if there is any discussion about how the european union thinks the arrangements can control the border and slow immigration? >> we support the continuing deals, it has had an impact on migration and movement across the edgy and but of course there are elements of the deal with which the uk is not involved because they involve the member states and looking at these issues of liberalization, that is still a matter to be discussed by those members of the board, as i say the uk is not part of that but i think we should recognize that the arrangements in place so far have had an impact on movement in degrees from turkey and crucially, i think what we do need to see is making sure the process of returning people who have no right to be there as

operating, that's one of the reasons why we are offering extra staff degrees to enable that process and those claims to be presented more smoothly. >> the whole house will welcome my right honorable friend as reported on syria and aleppo. the additional british humanitarian force including four units that she has announced and the path laid by british diplomats and the government over the weekend in securing the successful un resolution, very much along the lines of the debate in this house last week. will she ensure that over the christmas and new year holiday, the full span of government tension continues on securing unfettered access for humanitarian workers for medical supplies and food, bearing in mind that there are still around 60,000 people in aleppo that are

frightened and in temperatures well below freezing? >> my right honorable friend with his experience recognizes that is not just about agreeing a resolution, it's about ensuring that it is implemented so the humanitarian aid is available to people and people are able to leave safety is put into practice and i can assure him that we recognize the importance of getting this over the coming days that this will be important to be doingthis and the focus will continue to be on it . >> i like to remind the prime minister about the risks outlined in april 19 which is prompting some of our key financial institutions such as lloyd's of london to think about moving some of their business out of britain and does she agree with the chancellor who said that it would be helpful if we started to discuss a transitional arrangement going beyond that particular deadline and started discussing it now ?

>> the chancellor reflected the comments i made about when i spoke to cdi which was a recognition of the business , to be able to have some certainty beyond that point of leaving the european union. that's one of the reasons why we've already announced we are going to bring eu law into domestic law in the uk and some uncertainty about what that point of movement from this membership of the european union to outside the european union is area . >> thank you mister speaker. in november, the cfu economy minister of bavaria gave a clear warning on coalition partners in berlin on the uncertainties that could damage the bavarian economy as the uk one of its most important trading partners. does the prime minister appreciate the significant forces in europe supporting her timetable to trigger article 50 at the end of march in order to bring a conclusion to the arrangements of the pre-trade which existsbetween us and

bavaria ? >> the gentleman makes an important point, he makes specific in relation to bavaria but this is not just about what is in the interest of the united kingdom. it's also about what is in the interest of the remaining 27 members of the european union and as we negotiate that deal i expect we negotiate a deal which we like for the uk but would retain a strong european union which went with which we will be trading and with which we will be working on matters of mutual interest. >> an extension of sanctions against russia for another six months, it's been difficult progress on the midst abroad during the time in these months, what does she think the extension will achieve and how can we move that process forward? >> the council was updated by chancellor merkel who has

obviously been leading in relation to discussions on the minskagreement. it is as everybody is concerned that we still have a position where the men's agreement was not being put into place . we needed to and roll these sections and we chose our continuing rigor on this matter and the continuing expectations for russia that they will actually abide by the process. >> the good doctor, doctor julian lilly. >> the eu's country is dangerously implementing nato's structure but without american participation, couldn't do much more for the defense of europe if countries like france and germany and other states, members of nato actually sends a minimum of two percent of their gdp on defense? >> my honorable friend is seeing other countries stepping up to the plate,

this country is stepping to the plate of their budget on defense. i've been encouraging others to do so. >> mister david winick. >> there are many differences on her side over the freedom of movement but is it also not be the case, is this arrangement was a mover, it would make a mockery of the majority decision taken by the british people in the referendum. >> as i said in answer to my older friend earlier, i think it was an important part of one of the things underlying the vote was a desire to see the british government be in control and immigration from the eu and i suggested to the honorable gentlemen and if he has that freedom of movement, if you think freedom of movement continue he should talk to his own front bench about it. >> the right honorable lady

will be aware that 10,000 were killed since the beginning of that conflict and that the progress on this appears to be stalled. does she agree that we have a special responsibility and that we are signatories in the budapest memorandum and what she's done on what further pressure we could put on russia also with additional help we could give to the ukraine? >> i say to my right honorable friend that we do look at more we can do. by right honorable friend the defense secretary recently had an extension to training of the ukrainian forces that we were going to undertake and my right honorable friend the foreign secretary does also look at whether there are ways in which we can ensure that the minsk agreement is implemented in full but of course it's important that we work through the european union in doing that and put pressure on the european union behind it. >> mister bradshaw.

>> did she discuss with the leaders why russia was in the political process including our own, using propaganda and cider, what action is she taking to investigate what may have already happened in this country and what is happening in the future? >>. >> thanks to the right honorable gentlemen, everybody is aware of the way in which russia is currently operating in the world, the risks russia is taking in the whole range of ways and aspects. i'm sure the right honorable gentlemen will not expect me to go into detail as to how we look at these issues, particularly in relation to cyber matters but the right honorable gentlemen, has spoken indicated to us earlier but i'm sure the right honorable gentlemen that we take the actions of state-sponsored intervention and cyber attack seriously in the eu.

>> mister hernandez. >> does the prime minister's steadfast commitment to ensuring peace in the eu and its position in the uk is welcome. when she consider the consequences of the future report on which i worked together with the honorable members of man set which provides suggestions from how to regular lies the immigrationstate , the 1.8 immigration state or on track to gain permanent representation over the peace process both indefinitely and to remain. >> my honorable friend, i can ensure that we do of course look very seriously at any proposals that come forward on this and any other matters relating to brexit. >> thank you mister speaker, could i request her on the reply she gave to the scottish national on yemen area and i appreciate that she is the only leader of a foreign country to impress the eu completely and has

spoken courageously about the situation in yemen but we celebrate christmas on sunday, the people of today, who are eating grass and drinking seawater in order to survive, what does it say about politics in 2016 that the richest product in the world is unable to find time to discuss one of the poorest countries. >> prime minister. >> i can assure the right honorable gentlemen that we take the situation in yemen very seriously. there are a number of ways we are acting in relation to that, not least in the division of humanitarian aid but also by my honorable friend the foreign minister was in yemen for one of the issues he was discussing was the possibility of the opening report so that supplies can be got through to you. >> my reading of the council constitution on migration and defense and security cooperation demonstrates in

my view the strength of british institutions rather than the weakest which was the leader of the opposition's position.given that we spend our two percent of gdp on defense and we spend 87 on aid during both sizes, are we in a good position tomake the case , doesn't it show that when we let our coffers to want that close relationship with us which is why we will get a good deal. >> my right honorable friend is absolutely right. we should be proud of the fact in this country that we spend on budget on defense seven percent on international aid. that is something we recognize not just in the european union but internationally and it isthat that enables us also at the united kingdom to take on a number of these issues and he's right , the role the

united kingdom has played in the uk discussion is very clear that people will continue to want to have a good relationship with the united kingdom. i think that's what is going to be made to do a right deal. >> the bench in the british implementing in new york we have the security council resolution today but as the prime minister aware that the representative immediately denounced it and it's quite clear that the syrian government is not going to be happy about this. can she take practical steps to ensure that the resolution is actually implemented and particularly to affect those people who are witnesses to crime and those people like the white helmets who have been so brave in east aleppo but now could be at risk from hezbollah, the reigning militias or the migration?

>> the honorable gentlemen is absolutely right and that's why theseresolutions were implemented.he's right to congratulate the uk on that , they work very hard to make sure this was a resolution that would be affected by the security council. we do have to ensure these are put into practice. you were first to crime, we have been taking action and making sure that people are equipped and trained to counter evidence of crimes that have taken place sothose can be investigated . >> earlier the prime minister had said that when it comes to decisions about our national interest which is how on immigration, we can make these decisions for ourselves. i commend that statement and say that when she finally presents her plans to parliament to focus on outcomes and not means and say quite simply that when leaving the eu, when leaving the internal market, whenever we gain control of our borders that nothing in that administrator against concluding of free trade deals which is overwhelmingly in the interests of our

european friends and allies. >> my honorable friend, we need to ensure that we get the right possible deal and he is right to focus on the outcomes of the deal that we want rather than a means to achieve that outcome. i think it's absolutely clear and it is possible for us to get a deal which is a great good trade deal for the united kingdom but also in the interest of the european union. >> with regards to the best interest of the united kingdom, with the prime minister concur that remaining in the european reservoir or remaining in the euro zone or euro call is in the best interest ? >> the right honorable gentlemen knows that i've dispatched on this previously and indeed argued that we should remain within these particular aspects. the whole question of security, of cooperation on class is about issues that are going to take part in the

negotiations but it's an issue where it's not just a question of what's in the uk interests, the uk working with partners in the european union are interrupted. >> doctor andrew mirus and. >> what are the chances that the european defense fund will add new money to the collective european sense of security and what is the prime ministers planned for the matter of the implementation of the mechanism this year? >> the issue of the european defense fund which is been posted in the council conclusion, this is something which is yet to be fully fledged out in terms of how it will operate in the future. one of the issues that was discussed by the european council members is a concern to ensure better procurement of defense equipment across the european union and in that context that these issues are being considered. >> can i push the prime minister on the matter of security?

when you went to moscow, you spent so much more to united then we, and the fact of the matter is we have over 300,000 armed forces who can get them in wembley stadium. what would it take to push our borders in this unstable area? what would behoove us? >> i have to say to the honorable gentlemen and all that the defense is something like 200,000, not 100,000 he's talking about but let's look very seriously at the issue that he talked about. one of the things i said in my statement, the importance of nato is the bedrock of our security of our allies and of course that is organization which is important in ensuring our defense what is this government doing in relation to that? two percent of our gdp on defense, committed over 170 billion pounds over a number of years for investment in defense equipment, ensuring

that we do have the defense that we need to keep us safe. >> can my right honorable friend say how it's possible to concerned people, helping alleviate some of the rampant suffering that's currently over there? >> the gentleman is right to raise this issue which as we focus on the specific question of aleppo i think it's easy to forget the significant contribution the uk is making through its space budget to the humanitarian effort for the refugees from syria. of course, much of that is going into the refugees are who are in the country around syria, in lebanon and jordan but we are the second in relation to humanitarian aid on serious refugees have now reached 2.3 billion pounds. that means medical supplies,

food, water, these are getting through to people where they would not have happened otherwise. it also means children are being educated in the money that's being spent by the united kingdom and i think it's absolutely right that we do that. >> i commend her for her strong staff recommendation and 27 eu members met with the prime minister, is this the beginning of a true indictment from the eu and how did the prime minister confirm the steps that they are not kept in the dark, that everything is open and that this was expressed with our ballot box. >> 27 members of the european union met in 25 minutes to discuss those aspects of the process of the uk leaving the european union but i think it's absolutely right that they meet to go to the 27th because when we trigger our schools school systems, we want to make sure the process is as smooth as poorly as possible.it's in the interest of our economy and

in their interests as well. so i welcome the fact that we are meeting at 27 in order to make preparations just as we are doing to trigger article 50. >>. >> secretary and mister speaker, it is right that we've been saying good relationships with the 27 nation states of the european union what steps is the prime minister taking to ensure that the european countries not in the european union gain insight from their experience in that and also a plan for the future. >> raises an important point which is is not just our relationship with the eu as a whole, it's our relationship with individual countries who are members of the eu and not members and we do hold those discussions, i have those bilateral talks and i will assure those who i am speaking to the united kingdom outlines the european union will not be leaving europe. we want to continue to have good relations with our friends and allies across

europe we want to have good bilateral relationships that enable us to trade well with those nations as well. >> mister speaker, b aspects of the security posture as the ability to cost sections to the eu and what discussions as he had with her counterparts in the eu on leaving the european union? >> i can ensure you are focuses in ensuring that the uk voices heard when i put forward our opinion on sanctions like the us and russia and the importance of maintaining those actions until the agreement is implemented. >> i call mister davis. >> thank you. >> the one thing that both sides of the eu campaign can agree on is that during the

referendum campaign, one of the big issues was the amount of money we get each year to the european union to will the prime minister make a pledge that when we leave the eu, we will not not be paying money to the eu body and even contemplating that would be contemplating the trade that people voted for in the eu referendum? >> obviously while we remain members of the european union we will continue to have obligations as a member of the european union. what's important is when we leave and people wantto ensure that the british government , that our taxpayer money is spent. >> the european stress that those responsible for breaches of international law in syria must he held accountable and that the eu is considering all available options . >>

>> guarantee the rights of e.u. nationals residing here, much as we would like to, until we have achieved reciprocity for u.k -- [inaudible] >> prime minister. >> i agree absolutely with my honorable friend, and i think it's a fairly obvious fact that u.k.'s prime minister should have concern for u.k. citizens. those u.k. citizens who are living in other e.u. member

states, we don't want to see those being left high and dry which is why our position has always been we will guarantee the rights of the citizens living here provided they can have their rights guaranteed as well. >> mr. paul flynn. >> will brexit deliver what three for example sit ministers -- brexit ministers promised in the referendum and what the majority of the voters supported; namely, a 350 million pound a week payment to the health service? or will they get a bill for 50 billion for which nobody voted? >> we will -- when we leave the european union, we will be delivering on what my colleagues and we were campaigning for leaving the european union, campaigned for and those who voted for which is the united kingdom no locker being a member of -- longer being a member of the european union and being

able to take control how our tax money is spent, how our laws are made and our immigration. >> bernard -- [inaudible] >> speaker. will my, i've had conversations with our european partners who my right honorable friend make clear that whatever deal we strike with the european union, we will be offering free trade? and she ask them why anybody is considering a reversion to protectionism and tariffs particularly in view of the fact that article 35 of the treaty on european union enjoined the european union to contribute to free and fair trade? >> prime minister. >> my honorable friend raises a very important point which is that this is about getting a good trade relationship with the european union which is in their interests as well as in our interests. and so lots of references made to the process in relation to trade.

actually what we want to focus on is the outcome which is the best possible deal in terms of trading with an operation within the european union. >> louise hague. in. >> mr. speaker, under the prime minister's leadership, britain has opposed strengthening trade defense measures and has watered down action on the -- [inaudible] rule which has crippled the u.k.'s steel industry. will people be right to think when this prime minister takes control of future trade deals that british workers and industry will be more exposed than ever before? >> well, actually, the trade defense arrangements that have been in place had a significant impact on the question of dumping of steel. of course, everybody recognizes the importance of the overcapacity and the impact of the overcapacity in china. we've taken a number of steps as a government to reduce the cost simulation to climate change and energy costs for the steel energy at over 100 million pounds has now been made available to the steel industry as a result of that. we've insured that other factors

can be taken into account when people are looking9 procurement, social and economic factors can be taken into account. as regards to the defense arrangements that take place in europe, we think that, yes, we should insure that we are looking at the impact on producers, but we also need to look at the impact on consumers. what we call for is a balance on in dealing with these issues. >> mr.-- [inaudible] >> as the prime minister reaches her first christmas in her role, can i commend her for the sureness of touch she's demonstrated as prime prime min, commend her for setting up a fresh new government department for us to lead the european on union and remind her that in kettering, 63% of the people voted for her to leave and want her to get on with it as soon as possible. >> well, can i thank my honorable friend for his kind words. can i assure him that i, the government and everybody across government is focused on dliing

what overall -- delivering what overall the british people wanted which is leaving the european union. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i press the prime minister how will our government hold prone -- [inaudible] to account for the decimation of aleppo? >> prime minister. >> this is a matter which we and others in the international community will be looking at. of course, at the moment the situation the that president assad is still there in syria. this is something that we have said from the very beginning that we want to see a political transition away from president assad. but we're very clear that we need to look carefully at all the actions that are being taken in relation to the conflict in syria and insure that people are held to account for those actions. and, obviously, those actions that break international human tear law. >> mr. henry smith. >> mr. speaker, i congratulate and thank my right honorable

friend for the robust stance that she has taken in representing the united kingdom at the recent e. u. council meeting. can the prime minister say whether any of the leaders of the 27 expressed a wish not to want to trade with the united kingdom? [laughter] >> well, i'm very happy to tell my honorable friend that, actually, when i've been meeting leaders bilaterally, they have been very keen to express their desire to continue to trade and have a good trading relationship with the united kingdom. >> mr. bryan. >> what has happened in aleppo has not just been a tragedy, it's also been a series of acts of deliberate brutality by putin and his regime, and those responsible must be held to account. there is something she could do immediately which is she could sign up for the motion -- to the amendment to the criminal finance bill which has been tabled by the right honorable member for marking and her honorable friend -- [inaudible] which would take the assets from

those who have been involved in human rights abuses and end these war crimes. >> prime minister. >> the right honorable gentleman's raised an important point, but we already have legislative capacity in relation to such matters, and that is why i think the amendment has been considered not to be necessary and not to take us forward. >> mr. bob stewart. >> thank you, mr. speaker. assuming there's a humanitarian corridor to aleppo supported by a clear u.n. mandate is a possibility, would her majesty's government be prepared to consider using our military forces perhaps in small teams to monitor such an arrangement? is it something in which we have had -- as it's something in

which we have had considerable success -- >> the prime minister can also introduce an addendum to her last announcement which will undoubtedly bring much happiness to the right honorable gentleman. >> i must apologize, i'm afraid i was thinking in terms of -- [inaudible] law, that he frequently raises in relation to this -- [laughter] to matters relating to russia. so i apologize for that. in relation to my right honorable friend who, of course, has personal experience at providing support in circumstances where we need to provide that humanitarian aid and support to people, this will be a matter that will be taken up by the united nations, of course, the role that the united kingdom can play in that will be a matter for consideration and discussion under the u.n. auspices. >> [inaudible] in thank. >> thank you, mr. speaker. toward the end of her remarks, she talked in broad terms about the kind of mature, cooperative relationship she wants for britain outside the european union. which of the european countries

that are not in the european union is the deal she wants for britain most closely resemble? >> i have said consistently that we are not looking to try and duplicate or replicate a model that is there for some other country within europe. what we will be doing is negotiating the deal that's right for the u.k., and we will be ambitious in doing so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. while strongly commending the pivotal role which britain is playing in lebanon, jordan and other neighboring states in coping with the miserable outflow from syria, could i urge my honorable friend that a high priority in our dealings with the incoming administration in washington must be -- [inaudible] the growing hegemony of russia

and its ally, iran, in that region. >> i think it's very important that we look very seriously at the actions of russia. as i indicated earlier in response to the right honorable member for exeter, actually, that we look at the actions of russia across a whole range of activities that they are now involved in. one of the significant elements of the conclusions of the european council was that it now also identified iran as backing thes assad re-- the assad regime, and i think that's a very important step forward, and we should continue to make the point it is not just russia, it is iran as well. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's very welcome that the u.n. security council has unanimously ordered their u.n. personnel in eastern aleppo to monitor evacuations and access to humanitarian aid. however, i am concerned that required to coordinate with all parties such as russia and iran could see -- [inaudible] denied access. what rule does the prime

minister think -- role does the prime minister think europe could play -- [inaudible] in this manner? >> prime minister. >> for all of us in the international arena to insure that we provide the maximum support to the united nations in being able to do what is set out in the security council resolution. it is significant that it has been accepted unanimously by the security council, so it's not been vetoed like russia uncolleague previous resolutions that have been in place. the european union through the high representative has already been involved in the international arena. of course, as has my right honorable friend, the foreign secretary, in urging all parties to insure that this humanitarian aid can get through and that people who wish to leave can be evacuated safely. >> mr. geoffrey clifton brown. >> my right honorable friend is clearly right to report back from the council that iran is the other major actor in syria. what steps will the council be taking to have discussions with iran so that the atrocities committed in aleppo are not merely committed in other towns

and cities in syria? >> prime minister. >> the -- my understanding is that the european union high representative has already been having discussions with iran, particularly with the aspect of looking at the humanitarian aid which is necessary to get through. but as i just indicated in response to a previous question, i think it is absolutely right as my honorable friend says that we've identified iran as being a backer of the assad regime and how old continue to do -- and should continue to do so and continue to press them and russia that we now have a resolution in regards to evacuation and humanitarian aid for aleppo. but there is a lot more to be done, and we are going to get to a stable and peaceful syria for its people in the future. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very glad to hear about the additional aid being granted to syrian refugees at the jordanian border, but can i ask the prime minister what pressure or assistance are european leaders

agreeing to use to help those refugees trapped in the no man's land between syria and jordan? >> minister. >> obviously, part of the work that we're doing as the united kingdom and other individual member states are doing is putting aid into countries like jordan to help them in dealing with those refugees who are particularly those refugees who are already in jordan. as i indicated, some of the money that we'll be making available will be specifically looking at those who are now massing on the jordanian board. >> mr. richard -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. can i congratulate my right honorable friend for her thoughtful statement, and does she agree with me that brexit means we leave the e.u. and all of the e.u. regulations? and does she agree that's the certainty that this country is looking for? >> prime minister. >> my right honorable friend for repeating that brexit means brexit. it does, indeed. as regards the event u.

regulations -- e.u. regulations, i think it is important that at the point we leave, e.u. regulations -- [inaudible] it will then, of course, be over to this parliament to decide which of those regulations it wishes to continue with and which it wishes to change. >> drew henry. >> in regard to citizens who have come to live in the u.k., does the prime minister agree that the principle of protecting those who make a positive contribution to our communities should be a correspondent of our government? core responsibility of our government? >> i recognize the positive contribution that is made by citizens living here in the united kingdom. i have said on many occasions that i expect to be able to and wish to be able to guarantee -- [inaudible] here in the u.k., but we do need reciprocity. we need to have care and concern for u.k. citizens who are living in the european union. >> nigel mills. >> does the prime minister have any discussions with her counterpart on how quickly the e.u. can make progress on

battling multi-national -- [inaudible] and in particular, when the e.u. will go ahead with country by country reporting -- [inaudible] >> prime minister. >> i have to disappoint my honorable friend in that this was not a matter that was being discussed at the european on council. but the whole question of tax avoidance is one that the u.k. has led on, and it is an issue that i raised at the g20 earlier this year. >> dr -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. discussions -- [inaudible] with her european counterparts talk on the exchange rates of sterling and how many euros did she get for her pounds on her trip? >> no, we did not cuts that. discuss that. >> william wiggins. >> [inaudible] modest of the prime minister to only mention an extra 20 million pounds of practical support. as it's the festive season, perhaps she could talk a little bit more about all the other things we're fund anything that region. fund anything that region. prime minister. >> i thank my honorable friend for giving me the opportunity to do so.

i won't list everything that we are funding. as i've said, we are making a contribution that is now committed to 2.3 billion to helping syrian refugees. that is about medical supplies, it's about water, it's about the opportunity for young people to be educated, 10 million of 20 million as i indicated earlier will be for those who are now massing on the jordanian border, so very specifically looking at those that have, are vulnerable as a result of the most recent actions that have been taken. it's right that we're putting all of this support in, and i think this house should be proud of the efforts that this country has undertaken in order to support syrian refugees. >> jonathan edwards. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a major poll last weekend noted the overwhelming brexit priority of the people of my country was continued single market membership over controls on immigration. if she intends to abandon the single mark, will she support substate membership --

[inaudible] shackled to a sinking u.k. ship. >> prime minister. >> it's the united kingdom that will be leaving the e.u., the united kingdom that will be negotiating the deal that we have for leaving the european union, but we will be working with the administrations and taking into account the particular priorities that they have. but i repeat9 what i have said earlier, the honorable gentleman makes a reference to what is essentially a means or a process in relation to tray -- trading. what we want to focus on is the outcome we want which is the best possible trading deal within the single european market. >> michael tomlinson. >> thanks, mr. speaker. may i congratulate the prime minister for her determination to raise the issue of reciprocal rights despite the fact it wasn't formally on the agenda. this is an issue of serious concerns for e.u. citizens living here and our citizens living in europe. may i also congratulate her for raising this with individual member states as well.

may i urge her to continue with these talks and make sure that we put people first before process. >> prime minister. >> well, i can assure my honorable friend that i will continue to do this and continue to oppress for these matters to be looked at at an early stage in the negotiations to give people the reassurances they want. >> mr. david bare rows. >> the negotiations of immediate concern to my constituents is relating to the reunification of cyprus. can the prime minister confirm whether the european union will be present at the meter talks on the 12th -- at the party talks. will she insure the u.k. finally fulfills its historic legal duty to guarantee the independence of cyprus? >> prime minister. >> what i would say is we recognize the importance of these talks that are taking place. the u.k -- [inaudible] is very simple. we stand ready to do what is necessary to play our part, but it's important that that is primarily head by the two

leaders -- led by the two leaders who have pushed these discussions in cyprus. so we do stand ready to attend the talks on the 12th of january. the european union, who currently has an observer status in these matters, have also indicated their readiness to be present. but the, what we're all saying is we will be present if that is going to aid coming to a settlement. we must focus not on, you know, whether or not we want to be there, but actually on the result that we're going to get. and it must be in the aim of seeing a settlement and reunification. >> ah, yes, a notable legal egghead, mr. robert neil. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's accepted that business wishes to see the maximum possible certainty in which to make investment decisions. does my right honorable frenched frenched -- friend agree that that is not achieved -- [inaudible] but better by triggering it promptly but then being flexible and business-focused in the terms of our negotiation and the

implementation of the final deal? >> prime minister. >> makes an important point. it's precisely why i indicated last, in october that we would trigger article l by the end of march so it gave people certainty as to what the timetable was. but he's also absolutely right, we need the maximum flexibility thereafter in order to insure we can meet business needs and the needs of the u.k. generally. >> mr. rich graham. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister's approach is absolutely right especially for constituents whose jobs depend on trade, investment, students or residents for the european union who want to see us focus on the key ingredients of success. does my right honorable friend agree that her pragmatic focus on outcomes is much more likely to unify the country than some political parties' determinationing to define brexit as a boiled egg, whether soft or hard? >> well, i do agree with my honorable friend. i think the british people want with us to get on with it, do

the deal and get a good deal for the united kingdom. that's exactly what we want to do. >> mr. kevin foster. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i wouldn't expect the prime minister to comment on today's events, but the european council with the discussion on how the european union will maintain to continue the stability of turkey -- [inaudible] >> there was discussion, some discussion, notably in the context of migration deal with turkey, about relationship with turkey. as i indicated in response to a question earlier, that relationship is important. the e.u./turkey deal on migration has led to a significant reduction in the number of people crossing from turkey into greece. but we do need to insure that the deal is being properly undertaken. that's why we're giving some extra support to greece, and for the other aspect of the deal like liberalization, that is an action for the -- [inaudible] member states to consider, not for the united kingdom. but we're all very clear about

the significance of turkey and its relationship with the e.u. >> raymond -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i very much welcome the prime minister's statement. paragraph 26 of the communique talks about condemning the actions of the assad regime, russia and iran. apart from condemning, was there -- [inaudible] countering the iranian aggression in syria and also destabilizing activities in the wider region? >> prime minister. >> first of all, i think it was very important that the conclusions that came out of the council identified iran as well as russia as being part of, one of the backers of the syrian regime, and it was in the context of condemning what had taken place in aleppo that that was specifically raiseed. as regards iran more generally and, indeed, what is happening in syria more generally, of course, we continue as a european union and as a united kingdom to look for waysrd in to put pressure on those backing

assad to insure that we move to a peaceful and stable syria with a political transition and a proper process for doing that. that means continued pressure on russia and iran. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. may i also congratulate the prime minister on her calm and measured approach since taking, taking over as prime prime minin e.u./u.k. relations. but given that the u.k. government dedicated resources, understanding the u.k./u.s. position on both the trump and clinton campaigns, can she also confirm that we'll be dedicating resources to understanding not just dwomping parties, but also -- governing parties, but also potentially governing parties in the e.u. in order to help our renegotiation process? >> prime minister. >> i'd say to my honorable friend that, of course, we are in discussions with a number of people to insure that we understand the approach that is being taken in other member states by various parties. it's not just about political

parties though, it's also about understanding business and other interests in the member states that we're negotiating with so that we can -- that will make it better, us better able to come to a deal that not only is good for the united kingdom, but actually, as i've said, is the deal that we want. i think if it's good for the u.k., it will be good for the e.u. as well. >> mr. david -- [inaudible] >> does my right honorable friend agree that the government's priorities in syria must extend beyond vital humanitarian aid, preparing a post-conflict political settlement and also a reconstruction plan that will benefit the citizens of syria and help bring stability to the middle east? >> well, i'd say to my honorable friend, obviously, bringing peace and stability to syria and, therefore, helping part of the process of bringing stability to the middle east, i think, is an important, an important aspect. i apologize to my honorable friend because i was just

looking at what abelieve, mr. speaker, was some breaking news that the russianword to turkey -- ambassador to turkey has been shot which is a matter which has yet to be confirmed, but i think it's a matter of concern. >> thank you. >> mr. david -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mechanic. inevitably in the months ahead, there will be a great deal of speculation about the precise nature of the deal which will be made when we leave the european union. but can my right honorable friend confirm that when we leave, the european court of justice will no longer have any jurisdiction over this country? >> my honorable friend, this is an issue that my honorable friend has campaigned on for a considerable time. part of in the people took was about british as a parliament here in the united kingdom actually determining laws here in the united kingdom. and that means not being under the jurisdiction of the european

court of justice. >> mr. michael -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. a diplomat friend of mine from swede withen told me last week it won't just be the budget that they'll miss after brexit. what they will miss are the english nationals, the british nationals who work for the european union who he says are organized, systematic and imaginative and quite a contrast to many of the others who work for the secretaryuate. -- secretariat. so would my right honorable friend join me in wishing well for the future and, i guess, mr. speaker, a happy christmas? [laughter] >> well, i'm happy. there are many excellent british officials who are working inside the european union including, of course, our commissioner julian king with his very important portfolio in relation to security matters, and i certainly wish them all well for the future, and i wish them and the whole house a very happy christmas. >> thank you. marcus finch.

>> mr. speaker, would we be prepared to spend more than 2% of gdp on defense? for example, to underpin security in europe and elsewhere as part of the constructive, ongoing relationship between the e.u. and the u.k.? >> well, i have to say to my honorable friend that, of course, we have that commitment of spending 2% of gdp on defense. i think that's an important commitment that we have given. i understand that support will be there for the carriers, and i think it is right that we encourage others within the european union and within nato to increase their spending to the same sort of level. >> mr. robert genrich. >> thank you, mr. speaker. shortly before the council met, the 15th round of the e.u./u.s.' ttip talks predictably enough ended once again in stalemate. at the same time, the prospects for a bilateral u.k./u.s. deal appear to be on the rise, a deal

that doesn't compromise sovereignty between our two nations, a deal which doesn't see the need for a new super-national body to organize disputes because we respect each other's legal systems. will my right honorable friend make it the heart of our relationship with the incoming administration? >> first of all, as continuing members of the e.u. and for as long as we're there, we continue to press the advantages of the ttip deal and encourage those discussions on ttip. but, yes, i'm looking forward to discussions with the united states of america about the possibilities of a trade deal that we will be able to have with them in due course. >> dave morris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in libya there seems to be instability in tripoli. however, there seems to be stability in benghazi. i would like to ask my honorable friend, the prime minister, were there any discussions at the european council towards helping to stabilize the situation so there's no migration of people coming from libya? prime minister. >> there was some discussion of

libya because of the recognition that it does play an important role in relation to the migration of people from the rest of africa, up into -- across the mediterranean, into italy. of course, royal naval vessels have been in the mediterranean saving people's lives and continue to be there, but also as i indicated in my statement, training the libyan coast guard which is an important part of that process of preventing that migration from taking place. it is important that we have the government of national accord in libya and are able to interact with that government, and we would end courage and would wish to -- encourage and would wish to see stability across libya so that we can further insure that we're dealing with this issue of migration. ..

finally, carol carol anderson on her book white rage the unspoken truth of our racial divide. book tv at eight eastern huron seeping contract cspan two. once he spent three at american history tv with programs on world war ii. we will begin eight eastern with a discussion on the origins of the cold war. see it on c-span three. cspan remembers the passing of important public affairs and political figures. our program continues with a portion of the memorial service for muhammad ali. you're part of the remarks from actor billy crystal.

>> you had too live in his time. it's great to look at clips and it's amazing that we have him, but too live in his time, watching his fight is experiencing the genius of his talent and that was extraordinary. every one of his fights was an aura of a super bowl. he did things nobody would do. he predicted that he would not summary out and that he would do it he was funny, he was beautiful, he was the most perfect athlete you ever saw and those were his own words. [laughter] but he was so much more than a fighter. with bobby kennedy gone, malcolm x. gone, who was there to relate to when vietnam exploded in our face. there were millions of young men my age eligible for the draft or war that we didn't believe in. all of us huddled on a conveyor belt that was rapidly feeding the war machine.

it was ali who stood up for us by standing up for himself. >> that was part of our in memoriam program that looks at the passing of several key political figures in 2016. we will also feature portions of the funeral service for former israeli prime minister and the memorial service for astronaut and former senator john glenn, both of whom died this year. see see you tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this holiday weekend on book tv, saturday night night at ten eastern on "after words", wall street journal editor joanne lublin looks at top women leader in corporate america. at 11, cnn political contributors talk about journalists thomas lichtenberg book unprecedented, the election that changed everything and a look back at the 202016 presidential campaign.

at 10:00 p.m. eastern author sl price on the death of the steel industry and its effect on a working-class town seen through the lens of high school football in his book, playing through the whistle. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. the presidential inauguration of donald trump's friday january 20. c-span will have live coverage of the events and ceremony. watch live on c-span and cspan.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app.

next, a discussion on future relations between india and pakistan. you will hear about recent tensions and what can be expected in the next few years. held by the u.s. institute of peace, this is one hour 30 minutes. >> good morning and thank you for joining us. i am the associate vice president here and look after much of the asia center work of the institute. i apologize for starting on south asia time but it is only fitting. let me welcome the panelists. before that let me say whenever you talk about india and

pakistan you almost have to say it's a very interesting time. it's clichéd but this is an interesting and troubling time for the relationship. you would know that since mid-september, both countries have been in virtual crisis after an engine a terrorist attack killed 18 soldiers. there has been fighting in violent protests inside kashmir for a number of months. this time for the first time in what many of we see is a paradigm shift, india claimed they retaliated in september by conducting surgical straits inside pakistan. pakistan denied it and india said they did it and they're still arguing about it.

for the first time it has been very explicit in arguing that its policy is going to be to isolate pakistan globally. that pushed pakistan to retaliate. we have the heart of asia conference where the pakistani foreign minister was treated roughly according to pakistan newspapers. what we do know is tensions remain high, fighting is going on, both sides are armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and this is not a happy read. in the u.s. it remains off the radar when it came to the presidential campaign as did a lot of other form policy issues. at the same time we do now they are priorities for the u.s. and

have been or will be going forward. president-elect trump did make the headlines for a couple of days by suggesting he would be interested in resolving the dispute including cashmere which, if you go that way would be a major departure from u.s. policy. that would be to work with them independently and try to build relationships. if that changes there is a u.s. move toward working on the india pakistan relationship, what is in store for that? what are the stakes? should the u.s. do that? if it does, what will look like and if it does not then how does one manage this constant tension. these are are some of the issues we will discuss today and we couldn't have a better panel than what we have managed to get. let me just very briefly introduce them and then we will

move to the conversation. to my right is the codirector of the nuclear policy program for international peace. we also have the resident fellow at the american enterprise institute, a scholar of india who just returned last week and he is fresh from the ground. [inaudible] and last but not least former director of pakistan and the national security council and currently at johns hopkins. also, she just put out an interesting book called not war, not peace which looks at how to manage the cross terrorism problem coming from pakistan into india. very much everything we are

discussing here. as we announced, this event will be slightly different in format rather than having panelists give us longer presentations, i have requested them to keep their interventions to very short opening remarks, about three minutes each, answering a specific question question which is if they were advising the next for the incoming u.s. administration, what what would they be advising on how to manage the relationship, the crisis and the current and future tension. then we moved to a free-flowing conversation among our panelists for about 30 or 40 minutes before we open it up for q&a and i will make sure we leave ample time for that. without further ado, let me begin. this is how it will go. before that let me not forget, i was ordered ordered by the panelists to tell all of you what the twitter handles are. i'm not on social media so i don't understand what the

importance is here, but all of you can start following and tweeting or retreating or however it works. >> thank you. so we were to offer policy suggestions with respect to india and pakistan and having never been involved in policymaking process, i don't have a lot of advice to give. i will just take a few cuts at this. it won't be comprehensive. the first point is we need to have an honest accounting of our interest in the region and that's probably an internal policy choice. we are continuing to deepen our relationship but i think there's a lot of equity with pakistan that make for a good reason why we should not make any hasty move with respect to terrorism,

conflict in afghanistan, et cetera. it's important to keep in mind some of the things we still value with respect to pakistan in terms of respect on intelligence, homeland security, counter terrorism, the prospect for a counter isis organization to metastasize in the region. at the end of the day, in my opinion, i still i still think we need a relationship with pakistan to stabilize our objective in afghanistan. at the same time we can think more about dynamic incentives. perhaps being more responsive in terms of punitive measures when we don't see pakistan making good on some of the things we expect. we can also be more responsive in the opposite direction in terms of making recognition when they do make progress.

i don't think the u.s. appreciated some of the efforts were they went through. recognizing those efforts when they're made, recognizing their moves in 2015 that were fairly comprehensive and thorough, we seen some of the blowback effect absorbed from that. another point is to think about cross-border attacks and how they've adapted over time. if we have some dispassionate analysis of some of the cross-border activity on the line of control, over the past couple of years, there's actually been more narrowly focused. it's hitting hard targets of security forces rather than going after civilian forces. while the united states should make very clear that these activities need to be dialed back, even if we don't push for something like dismantlement, there might be some realistic but messily measures that we

could push for. things that aren't about going after the heart but maybe. [inaudible] thinking about these interim messy options rather than decisive measures might gain us more traction. there is another broad trend in the region which is that china is investing heavily in pakistan and also potentially in afghanistan down the road. and there is a general sense in pakistan that the united states might want to compete with them. i'm not quite sure that's an accurate assessment, but i think there is a good way to frame the switches that we don't necessarily need to come pete with china but we can still stay in the game. i think there's obvious ones in terms of economics. china is putting down a lot of infrastructure investment and hardware, but i think there's some concerns within pakistan about the needs to retain a relationship with europe and

u.s. for trade to avoid monopoly power by china and access to international lending should the oil crisis spike. another way of thinking of this is china brings hardware to pakistan and the u.s. can bring software. that's development of the labor force, education systems, things like that where the u.s. doesn't necessarily have to compete on the hardware infrastructure side last, i think there's a lot of expectation that china could play a major role in crisis management, mike conversations with them is that colleagues who studied china feel that they may not be poised to do that right now. i think the u.s. will be a critical manager seen by both sides as being necessary. the last point i want to say is just about a coherent policy

when it comes to the two borders that we care about a lot in south asia. obviously the indian and pakistan but also. [inaudible] we can make more coherent policy with respect to these two borders. they seem to be fairly sideload and that could be across purpose. when i think of other major contested areas in the world, we don't necessarily make policy in terms of iraq on their borders, there has to be some coherence between how we think about their relationship with the golf and relationships with iran. in the same respect we need to understand how policies on one side will affect the other side, not just by the u.s. but, still having more coherence on these two borders would help. the last point i will add related to this which is a think

there's always a push for conflict resolution. when the game of conflict resolution on a regular basis and this is something that i think is quite difficult or certain parties don't want us to participate in within the bilateral relationship. even if we aren't necessarily engaged in conflict resolution, is something that might need to become more organic, but we can't help creating some facts on the ground that could harden borders. when i think about that, it's not just in terms of pakistan but also india and it means material assistance and guidance and defensive capabilities. the greatest flashpoints for a lot of these crazies is coming out of cross-border attacks with very vulnerable, where it shouldn't be happening. there's a lot of things that go unnoticed but a lot of obvious failures and unknowing's in terms of the intelligence that was available, the organizational anthology to run

throughout these various areas and these are things that the united states have spent a lot on and pakistan is also on the game of trying to harder its borders and we could probably play a role in that in the hard way side of things in technology infrastructure but also in terms of how helping the outcome to understand what can be done for both sides in managing the flow of people across the borders and the risks that come along with this. this will resolve conflict but it could put some facts on the ground. >> thank you. >> i will make five quick points the first of which is sort of in the category of advising what not to do rather than what to do which i realize was in the task, but i think it's important to

think it through. in this category, there is a temptation to see issues as binary without really understanding the history and some of the linkage between these. i think that's a temptation that if followed can lead to real trouble. probably related to that, avoiding making statements for which there is no intention or capability to follow through on is also important. if you say you're going to negotiate, you better have something behind that other than 140 characters. third, in this category, i would say taking a short term view of problems that have deep political routes is also not advisable. those are three things that i think would be well advised for the incoming administration not to do. what they should do, and following some of the points

that you made, it's really important that there be some sense of prioritization, and i looked at this largely in terms of issues that carry significant risk for the u.s. let me highlight two of them. first, as we've seen over the past six months, the potential for a crisis in southeast asia to escalate is not something that exist just on paper. it is now something that we can see in the dynamic, the politics, the demand in india for retribution, this is something that is growing, and second is the potential for there to be another terrorism incident in the united states that is traceable to south asia. that could be a serious disruptor of our policy there. finding leverage on these two risks i think is important. a problem here is that the u.s. role has often created

dependencies, in particular with pakistan that verge on moral hazard and that brings some real challenges as we think about our crisis role. it would behoove the next administration to think about what next crisis could look like and what some of the questions that they might confront would be. for instance, if there is a crisis where there is more of a military activity then we saw after the early attack, let's imagine we had imagery showing that pakistan was moving nuclear weapons ,-comma what would we do with that information would we caution pakistan about doing something? would we provide the coordinates to india, one possible way to think about the u.s. role is in how we could help clarify the signaling that each is intending to do. a third., and in the context of the discussion and debate lately

about intelligence here in washington is the importance of intelligence sharing relationships that would not be bound by politics and our relationships. i think this is super important in terms of having the clearest possible assessment of risk and threat through for the issues i just described. both as a catalyst and also given the threat of terrorism potentially coming to the u.s., we need to maintain those relationships regardless of whatever else is happening in the bilateral relationships. fourth, this follows from some of your points on china which i largely agree with although i think will want to get into it a little bit more, i think it's important to embrace more wholeheartedly changes that could reduce u.s. risk exposure in the region. i think the economic court or is an interesting potential case of this. it's quite possible that the chinese presence there could be stabilizing, or at the very

least we should think through whether there's any reason we have to see china's engagement other than zero-sum, recognizing there are significant concerns about this. lastly, sort of a pet issue for me, specifically on nuclear things there is a temptation and a real effort in this administration to try to negotiate some nuclear deal with pakistan. i think you have to take real care in understanding the nuance of that issue, the dangers of that issue, it's relationship to the india pakistan competition. for going to go down that road this is one where we have have both eyes open because of how important it is in the region. >> thank you so much. >> in my think tank cat i've been working on a paper on u.s. pakistan relations and trying to make recommendations for the next administration and i worked through the whole analysis, i talked about ct and domestic

politics and al qaeda and afghanistan and i went back to review it and i realized i had ignored india and pakistan and just wrote do something about it there's a huge gap in my papers i'm helping my colleagues will help me over the coming weeks to fill that out, but i use that to illustrate the fact that india pakistan has often been an afterthought in america policymaking in that afterthought usually comes when there's a crisis, when it's actually happening. we realize that not only do we have to respond to this, but we don't have a plan in place to prevent these sorts of escalations from happening and we automatically go into crisis mode rather than any kind of long-term prevention planning, even though we may have engaged in contingency planning with intelligence community or amongst diplomats or defense folks. that's kind of the starting

point that i would say we have we have to think about what you're making recommendations to the next administration that there's actually no foundation for long-term planning. there is a response effort always underway and i find it to be slightly ironic and challenging because one of our main interest in south asia is to prevent nuclear escalation. the foundational interests don't match up with how we have designed the policy and how we have set up our infrastructure to manage it. i actually see it more as a policy management issue rather than a conflict resolution approach and i think that's the most we could expect the next administration to do and i haven't ever seen us do more than that. given that, i just want want to highlight a couple new dangers to consider and then focus on

some new recommendations. fear of direct military conflict is real. it should always be real when two people have nuclear weapons and the kind of relationship they have. it is real. i think recent events have suggested that we have to be more realistic about this for two reasons. virtually unchecked militants in pakistan. it doesn't mean they haven't done anything with these militant groups to control them, doesn't mean mean that pakistan isn't interested in controlling them in the future, but there is a dynamic between the pakistan state and the anti- india militants that doesn't give the state a lot of flexibility. there are too many trade-offs in taking actions against them so that limits this behavior. we have to really worry about that in the implications of that when conflicts do arise with india. second, the notion of perspective that there would be less indian restraint should something happen, should there be a cross-border attack. i'm earlier would've told you that there is no escalation possible. this isn't going to happen. so many attacks have happened

that have been linked back to militants in pakistan in the indian government has not responded with military force. i'm not sure i can say that now. it is something we have to pay attention to, that increased risk of the unknown. second, and on the geopolitics side of things the speakers have already mentioned that the india u.s. relationship is expanding, pakistan is strengthening ties and the russians are interested in that as well and i worry that some of these new diplomatic options actually reduce the allure and should something happen, indian pakistan might take a conflict further because they have these big brothers behind the scene that they can go to and use as leverage. that something that we have to pay attention too in the next administration should think about it. as long as the u.s. is there and as long as the u.s. is helping, i wonder wonder about the events

in kashmir and when they're dialed up or dial down, how much much of that is actually related to the indian presents, the u.s. has flip-flopped a little bit on the messaging there. when i was in government we would often say to them that you had to pay attention to your presence there, it's it's causing a lot of concern and pakistan, their more recent statements have suggested otherwise that the u.s. is very much in favor of india's activities and i think there has to be a middle ground and that's going to be a very tough thing for this administration to focus on but that would be one area i think we should focus on. in terms of actual recommendations, i think this is more of a policy management rather than conflict resolution. one very specific recommendation i would make is throughout the u.s. government to consolidate the india and pakistan bureaucracy as much as possible. there is strong tendency when

the two countries are separated and sometimes it favors one country over the other and i don't think it's doing our policymakers, it's a little unfair to them because essentially you are supposed to represent and focus on the bilateral relationship you're not looking at things in a relationship. whenever a new administration comes in, they they always want to solve this. let's avoid that grant peace narrative. it has never worked and that's not realistic, but there is a tendency for that. another broad policy recommendation i would make is to focus on private diplomacy and strengthening the mechanisms that we have for that. we know, and someone alluded to this already, we know that public statements don't want to

work wellin this region. when the u.s. makes a public statement it can be used for whatever reason domestically in india and pakistan so we have to be very cautious about what we say, if it's on twitter or elsewhere. i think that public narrative can actually hurt us in many ways. thinking critically about what kind of private narrative we want with both countries and who delivers that message. that's where i think the role of diplomacy is really important, the state department, using, using our ambassadors in the region, connecting the u.s. foreign service officers in delhi and islam about to make sure they're having conversations on these issues is really important. having modest goals and not solving cashmere. that's not a modest goal. we look at india and those concerns and phase into that conversation. and that's another area we could have some kind of modest improvements in the issues.

finally, i would say as a closing point, we haven't haven't mentioned economic engagement or development issues yet and i think there is a lot of space for collaboration between india and pakistan in there always has been in the business community there can be joint projects on development and economic engagement. these are really important because when conflict does happen, sometimes the countries need to show that they are stopping something or halting something so they can assess the situation. you need to have these other levers to push and pull and i think having a development in economic engagement can allow for that and give both sides some breathing room and also the support is there and are less political and it would build a long-term goodwill whereas on the security and development side, i don't think that's as easily done. >> thank you. >> i meant to bring a slightly different prism to the

discussion. i follow india domestic politics quite closely and i have been in india repeatedly over the past couple of months and i would say, i will make three big points. the first one is that the political dynamic in india is quite dramatically different here, but it's not simply the election in 2014, but what we are heading into over the next two and half years. early next year you have an election in india's largest state. it is seen as a semi final before the final which is the national elections in 2019 which effectively means that now india is back in election mode in general election mode. that makes a big difference. >> the second point is i think the attacks, it seems quite clear that indian policy now is

going to be much more unpredictable than it was in the past. i don't think it necessarily suggests that every time there is a terrorist attack on an indian army camp that india will necessarily retaliate, but i think this shows that our old assumption is that it would almost certainly not retaliate and take diplomatic tools over military tools number that has basically gone out of the window with the response. that i imagine, coupled with the political popularity of that act really does increase the odds of india responding militarily to a terrorist attack, not only in kashmir but particularly if there was something in the mainland. the second sort of point that i would like to make is that all of us over here follow south

asia quite closely, but realistically, this is not one of the top five policy concerns of any incoming administration. i would argue that increasingly india and pakistan, that relationship is going to be viewed through the prism of what's happening in asia more broadly and then of course you have what's happening in the south china sea, you have the relationship between the incoming relate administration and the chinese, and i think increasingly what this is going to do is push india pakistan even lower in terms of the list of priorities than where it has been earlier. i think what these two things together mean is that you have a sort of india which is becoming. [inaudible] i will give you one example. a few weeks ago i wrote a column

in the wall street journal where i argued that india should not pursue any kind of cultural boycott against pakistani movie stars because i think it's counterproductive and not a very good idea. i was struck by the amount of blowback i got on social media and elsewhere, and a few years ago this would not have happened. a few years ago this would've been a fairly mainstream position which as you can take a tough position against terrorist groups or even against the pakistani government for not doing enough against terrorist group but that things like sports and movies and so on are out of bounds. i find the mood has changed quite sharply. in some ways this is a slow fuse reaction going back all the way to mumbai. in some ways this is something that reflects the rise of a very

new aggressive hyper naturalistic newschannel environment in india and also these three things coming together. i think india is going to be increasingly. [inaudible] i think the political payoff are quite clear, particularly now given that the prime minister has done something quite unprecedented on the domestic policy front by basically freezing the cash supply. he is going to be looking for ways to recover around and i would imagine this is something, i'm not saying it certainly will happen but it certainly more heightened than i would've said six months ago or a year ago. in terms of what it means for u.s. policy, i think at some point there's going to be a reckoning and this idea that u.s. policy toward india could,

on the one hand, draw india more and more toward a more active role in east asia, particularly itself used asia with a great naval presence while ignoring indian concern with what's happening in pakistan, i think that circle can no longer be squared because of what's happening in domestic politics. if, that's a big if there is another major terrorist attack and the mastic pressure builds on the indian government to retaliate, the u.s., going back to what has been a mode that had been successful in the past, which which was to urge restraint upon india in order to stabilize the situation, i believe would be a greater impediment to the u.s. and india

developing that relationship than it would've been in the past. >> that's great. think you to all the panelists. let me very quickly turned to all of you and perhaps have a discussion. you sort of made this point which i think is crucial, it's conflict management, not resolution. the question i would have have for you, but if others want to chime in, is it realistically possible for the u.s. to secure its interest in south asia without some resolution if not total and complete of the u.s. pakistan's policy is a direct by product in a lot of ways. how does india really play to

this issue coming up. are we not only looking at the symptoms here? i'm not saying is resolvable, but is it realistic to expect while this problem remains. >> it sort of what we've been doing this whole time. >> it's not working out too well >> i think were in this mode where we deal with it when he comes a problem because there are bigger issues that were working on. on the pakistan u.s. side, i think it's the number one issue. it's not the relationship with india. that is in a reactionary mode. i don't see that changes it must we go to zero troops in afghanistan in the next year and less that situation changes, i think the u.s. is counseling

going to have to balance how it approaches peace between the two countries. i remember having a conversation in 2008, and at that time were giving a lot of money to pakistan, and being at the state department a senior official said kashmir is not a national security interest. as long as we can manage india i think we will be okay. i think the comment is interesting and perhaps we need to think about it on the indian side that they're not going to respond to u.s. attempts to restrain them anymore. we don't know what they're going to do i would ask you to elaborate on that little bit. what possibly could happen in the event that they choose not

to respond to u.s. pressure? >> you saw the interesting debate breakout after the attack on september 18 were in the beginning india looked as though they were going to follow the playbook and there were a lot of people who wrote articles is that they're going to do what india has always done and there were hand full of people arguing that no he will not because of the constituency that elected him and it could be weird and irrational, but the disproportionate role that social media plays in the policymaking process in india. >> you saw the strike. i thought it was quite restrained and carefully planned to maximize the domestic applause while minimizing the

fallout. in terms of what was outward facing was the fact that india had only gone after these launchpad's, not after the pakistan military. it has not used airpower. it has immediately declared it to be over in a finite way. of that was adjusting restraint, but what they calculated quite cleverly is that the domestic media has no restraint and they were cooking up bizarre stories like helicopter raids and all that was great for the government but it was all untrue but they managed to get the most out of it. i would not be surprised, if there is cause for it, to do something similar and then the question is what does the u.s. do. my interpretation of what they do was that it agreed with the

indian position in the sense that it didn't lean on india, it essentially acquiesced. the question is does it acquiesce again. you must and down because the stability of the region is at stake. my point is, if that happens, there will be, i don't think it will work and secondly i think there will be pushed. >> you have done a lot of work on this, you have done the book, i see this in various ways. i think what he is saying is well taken, but what happens if india does something next time and let's assume pakistan response, and then what? are they going to launch the

next nuclear war or do they want the u.s. to say back off? is that playbook remain? >> i think it goes back to the question of some of the u.s. response, coming as it does to try to encourage restraint is exactly what pakistan has wanted the u.s. to do. maybe there's some calculation of provocation that would bring the u.s. in. but now you have this unpredictability about the extent to which the next administration is going to be concerned about this. that's a problem.

i think it's also important for the indian policy makers to think about what that affect they want to have in pakistan. is it going to be a tactical approach or are they trying to coerce and change behavior in pakistan in some important way? if that is actually what they're trying to do, then the means of which they would do that would have to be significantly different than surgical strikes and more. since the early attack and before that, you've seen more of an effort by india to isolate them. you had the heart of asia, the water treaty in question and what is the effect of the isolation should there be another attack?

all of that is a pretext to say if they want to change behavior, the approach to use that as more course of military force, that places a lot of pressure on their own domestic narratives and the difficulty for the political class or the military attack to actually take on groups like lut, that's really hard and there has to be some response. the domestic source of escalation exist on both sides. i think it's difficult for anybody sitting here to think about how you can influence that in ways that would buy time, as we've we've tried to do in the past or stop escalation. >> if i may ask, it hasn't been discussed as much on this panel

but there's a conversation about isolating pakistan or cutting them off, not only in delhi but in washington. how does one square this urge to punish pakistan, cut them off, whatever it is with this crisis management problem? if you have you have no relationship with one country, how do you influence them. if the u.s. loses that ability are we leaving the door open for china? >> first let me talk about the restraint and escalation. so this might be, it might be an

unpopular deal but i don't they broke out of the mold of restraint. i think at the end of the day they decided the cost of escalation outweighed the benefits and so they chose a method that has seen political gains without much effect and i don't think there testing the threshold that much in there actually action. there's a public statement that came after that where they're pushing that a little bit more but seems that restraints are pretty much held in the operation was an interdiction operation. i don't think we've push that bound yet. on crisis management, does the united states, do they foreclose on the crisis. potentially. i think that's constantly a concern but i don't think our concerns are just about the crisis management angle. frankly, if anything in the pakistan will be more interested in us playing a role so that's not a concern as much in the united states as what's going on

in afghanistan and intelligence cooperation. it's something europeans think a lot about but it goes unnoticed on a day-to-day basis. european governments are concerned about the flow of nonstate actors and they don't really have good intelligence on where they contract these guys are where they're going, whether it's good or not one of the core sources of support is going to be pakistan. so on the crisis management thing, i don't don't think we necessarily need new leaders of influence, but i think we are going to start being involved in the process in one way or another and i don't think china is really filling that void any time soon. she should honestly think

pakistan would want the u.s. to be involved in the conversation. >> the crisis will become tougher. >> i agree if you measure on india's response purely in military terms, it did not break the bounds, but i think in particular when it comes to india and pakistan relations, what is said publicly, there's such a large element of theater. go back to the 1998 nuclear test. the rational nuclear test. the rational thing for pakistan to do was the fact, given the backdrop and the fact that in both countries the theatrical element is so important in this particular relationship means that india, going out, having a press conference and saying look, look, we did this has much greater significance than purely the military aspect was suggesting. >> i would argue both of you are agreeing on this. i think the paradigm shift is

not what was done but how it was presented. if i may, are we part of the problem? the reason i bring this up, we assume that domestic pressures are so huge on both sides that they will be of the holdback and they have to do something, but. [inaudible] if the indian account is correct and pakistan absorbed the strike and they did nothing, they denied it. i wonder if there's more space, one of the well-known scholars have made this argument in the past that actually they manipulated the public sentiment and used it as they want. do we have more than actually

giving credit to both sides. >> quite possibly. i'm not saying that something has changed in the sense that now indian retaliation has become a certainty. i don't think we've moved from one kind of certainty to a new kind of certainty, but i do think the amount of uncertainty has been raised significantly. >> i actually think india does have more space to do some of these lower-level forms of retaliation, mainly because of the stronger relationship with the united states. this is a pipe product of the relationship as it exists right now. if we keep talking about changing pakistan's behavior but this is what were going to do now and the americans aren't saying anything and pakistan observed it.

i do think there is more space for india to do this. we don't know what they will do and if it will rise to that the level and if the u.s. gets closer to india, this could happen more frequently and i do think there's inclination within american bureaucracy to be accepting of that approach. it's actually an outfit americans in some way because it puts checks and balances without the u.s. having to make any kind of public statement. >> i just want to follow a briefly on the theater.in your point about twitter and other media. the theater can be helpful to the extent that there are linkages including cultural linkages that allow people to interpret it on both sides but to the extent that they are

being shut down and it's much harder to do that interpretation, you essentially essentially come up with very captive narratives and not much ability to read the signals between them. think that's another one of these new unpredictable elements of thinking through the. >> if both sides are back on the cultural side, they won't stop, indian movies and pakistan soap operas won't stop. i can promise you that. me ask you this question. we talk about the dangers and salvation and the arms race entry and race and the nuclear weapons et cetera. we are pushing both sides to make sure they manage this relationship in a responsible manner. at the same time, i would argue, that there'd not -- neither side is doing what is possible.

[inaudible] where does the u.s. come in? on one hand we are in a fairly strong arms relationship with india but on the other hand we provide support pakistan and what we see at the end of the day is that the biggest concern you're suggesting is nuclear and this only increases with this paradigm. is there policy, internal contradiction in policy and terms of how we are approaching this when it comes to this? >> i wouldn't say these decisions, think there's not necessarily irrational, but what

i think might be happening is they might not be internalizing the full set of risks. for one thing, obviously there are a lot of nonstate actors roaming around in pakistan, some wished they have tackled and some which they haven't or they can't, but those take a lot of risk across their borders but they may not be able to manipulate and control. it's taking that ability to control escalation out of their hands and not something that, if it was factored in might lead to an alteration of the cost of benefits of going after some of these groups because of those risks. similarly, with india, they are exposing themselves to certain risks by choosing to not take certain actions, particularly in kashmir. they have a lot of vulnerabilities that are easily

exploitable by external actors and some that are within that region, but in recent years they seem to have denied that they have a problem, maybe it's a new one that has metastasized and reverting to the talking points as well as other actors driving this entire process when there seems to be much more organic unrest within kashmir that they're vulnerable to violence. i think one last point, certainly there's going to be armed competition, but there is a question of sufficiency and how much is enough. in this case, again, i think the worry that gets expressed within some parts of the united states and the analytical community is if you start to push yourself in

one direction, if you build up and compete on every platform or plug every hole in the escalation ladder, do you start a run out of the resources that underpin your security and your military strength. >> one clarification. my biggest concern is not the nuclear perspective but that the india pakistan problem may derail or has the potential to derail larger interest in the region which are being driven. >> if they may quickly come to you, you had mentioned this, but everybody mention this one way or another. pakistani behavior. this question of changing pakistani behavior which is principal u.s. focus effort for number of of years you've been in government and tried your hand at it. others have. what changes the behavior? i think a lot of times people talk about increasing and i've

seen no evidence that assistance does that. whatever behavior change wants, ultimately what is going to change it? it very well may be the india pakistan relationship. is there anything here that realistically. [inaudible] >> in short no. i don't think that strategy works. we've seen that over the past decade and prior to that. pakistani behavior changes when it realizes that a hazard interest that it wants to pursue. we did see a change in pakistan's orientation toward certain militant groups in the northwestern areas. we did see that. that's observable. with they went after them, they suffered the backlash of that, they were caught, they knew that and they continued to explain to the public that we will continue on the path toward other militant groups on our own timeline. if i were to look at that as one example, it strikes me that once

pakistan's own security is threatened, they start to look at these differently. when they only look at them through the national security paradigm, it's not going to work. you can change their orientation. if they feel threatened and circled him, they're they're not going to change their behavior, but if there's an increased sense of threat to the state, i think that that opens it up for possibilities. when it comes to the anti- india groups, it becomes tricky because there's a connection to kashmir. it's not just that these group could target pakistani citizens. they're very useful tool and its relationship with india. i think that's where it becomes more capitated. i do think on the assistance issue, this is something we have to tackle. the the next administration may not choose to do that, but if we don't do it now will have to do it in eight years or four years.

the u.s. assistant relationship with pakistan is a crutch for pakistan. they know, the pakistan mindset is that the americans will come in at the 11th hour hour because they have so much invested in us. whether it's on the nuclear issue, that relationship will continue to be a crutch. that orientation towards india, they know that if we just go to for that americans are getting get worried that they will come in and save the day or not save the day. there will come in for us. i think until that changes, it's status quo. >> toby. >> going back to your book, the premise of which is how do you, as india, manage the terrorism problem cross-border. what about the other scenario which may not be the most seemingly problem but is realistic. it happens because of the