election. i thought i read that somewhere. and in our countries, where trade and ttip is being debated. here i think the focus is mainly on fast why and ttip. in our countries, some of our countries, ttip is debated as well. that's a good thing. the debate focused very much on how to reconcile preserving identity and our individuality embodied in midsummer and fourth of july celebration among many other things, but also the way how we choose to regulate our societies, our economies, when we live in a globalized world. and our response to that so far has been twofold. first, we need to engage much more with people to address the concerns. that includes changing the approach somehow we negotiate trade. we need highly ambitious trade agreements also that create economic opportunities. so we need to listen, engage and we need to show that the

economic opportunities are there. and with ttip, we can do both, changing approach and highlighting the economic rational. and we have already taken important steps to engage in the debate and modify our approach. for instance, in response to public concerns in europe, the european union has shown an unprecedented amount of transparency. we have published texts, proposals, background reports, detailed summaries of the negotiations online for everybody to see. we are traveling around together with my team and me, we're traveling around the european union to engage in different citizens dialogue to reach out, to listen and to answer questions and also take concerns on board with us into the negotiations. together with ambassador froman, we made clear that removing regulatory protection is not an aim of these negotiations. we are also make clear we want

a system to protect investment that is clear but also regulates the freedom -- guarantees the freedom to regulate. and we have been united behind the principle that ttip should not change government's ability to provide health care or education or water or all of the above. we have agreed that ttip must protect our values around the world when it comes to labor and the environment. if we want negotiations to succeed, we have to continue to adopt and continue the dialogue with stakeholders. so that is one response to popular concern. but also if you want people to support this deal, we have to create real economic opportunities. we have been negotiating this now for three years. we have come a long way. we can begin to see the outlines of what ttip will look like. but we still have a lot of work to do. and to meet our target at the end of the year, we need to work a lot more. and we are ready from the

european union to do that. we're preparing ourselves to have text ready across the board for the summer break. we are prepared to make the political choices needed to close this deal by the end of the year if we have the right results. we will not conclude a ttip light to have it concluded. it has to be a good agreement that the u.s. can get through the political system and that we can have the acceptance in our 28 member states. so what does that mean? well, starting with market access, trading goods, we need an ambitious outcome that removes the remaining tariffs on almost all areas. here we are relatively well-positioned. ambitious offers on the table from both sides. on trading services, we have more to do. first ttip must address the long-standing existing barriers,

particularly from our perspective, that the eu service providers face here in the u.s. that includes addressing approaches to issues like maritime services, aviation services, telekom, and across border movement of service providers. it also includes mutual recognition of qualification for professionals like for instance architects and strengthen cooperation so we can regulate the transatlantic financial service industry. second, we also must secure existing openness to international competition. much international services trade depends on investment, and thereby predictability is very important. so what is clear is that the eu has the larger effort to do when it comes to guaranteeing existing openness, why the u.s. has the larger effort to make in terms of addressing existing

trade barriers. so we are welcoming on both sides to address these issues. third element of market access is public procurement. this is necessary to have an ambitious agreement here and create new opportunities at the federal and state level. we are looking from the eu side to establish a level playing field. when eu companies compete for contracts with the federal government and critical mass of u.s. state, we want to have the same advantages and possibilities as u.s. firms have under our european system. we have one set of rules, we have full transparency, joint database, that announces all public procurement possible contracts at all levels of the european union. so here we are seeking more level playing field. i am very aware that this is a sensitive issue in the u.s. we are ready to explore an ambitious outcome that takes the sensitivities into account.

but this is a highly prioritized area from the european union side. so a substantial improvement is needed at all levels of government. the second pillar that regulatory cooperation is vital must be ambitious if ttip is to deliver growth and jobs. but also carefully implemented if we are to address public concerns. and that means we need to do three things. we need to agree on common principles for good regulatory practices on both sides. that means for instance committing to high quality impact assessments, public consultations. it means addressing technical issues like standards and conformity assessments.

secondly, we must provide platform to help regulators to cooperate in the future. they would be plenty of work to make the transatlantic regulation more compatible after ttip is finished. built in agenda for a future regulatory cooperation is therefore essential. so it is its institutional framework, fully involved regulators from both sides. we have in the eu and in the u.s. the best regulators in the world. if they can work together to share knowledge, data, expertise, to advise our lawmakers, we can jointly set very high global standards. of course, this should be in the mutual interest and not restrict either side's freedom to regulate in the public interest. this is an advisory body. and ultimately the legislature makes the decision, of course. the third goal of regulatory cooperation is specific results that reduces unnecessary duplications of requirements. we are discussing on both sides the respective rules for nine seconders such as pharmaceutical, engineering, medical devices, motor vehicles, textiles. now it is the time to turn this

into commitments. we're making proposals for the july rounds on medicines and we will come with more in the coming weeks. here we need a good outcome for the economic perspective and the credibility. and this is possible. we are not here to limit the freedom of u.s. agencies to regulate as appropriate under the statutes, simply seeking technical fixes to bureaucratic hurdles and deeper cooperation in the future. here we have already made good progress. the final pillar is what we call global rules. that covers sustainable development, small and medium sized companies, geographical indications and investment. sustainable development, here we are from the eu side aiming for provisions that protect labor rights and the environment in both jurisdictions, to strengthen cooperation on the issues also around the world. we want the most ambition provisions ever on labor rights and the environment in a trade agreement.

we make reference to the ilo declarations. it addresses the issues such as decent work agenda, health and safety at labor, and we also want to promote these standards globally and to promote globally also the work against child labor to protect endangered specie, promote corporate social responsibility, et cetera, and starting the discussion on how this should be enforced. second, rules to ensure small and medium sized firms so that they can benefit from the deal, because it is more cumber some for them to handle all the bureaucratic obstacles, to fill in the forms, to keep track of all the different tariffs and so on. they don't have the economic possibilities to have departments to do that such as big companies have. and for them trade barriers are significant. they cost a lot. they don't have this army of

lawyers and experts. one thing they really need is to once we have an agreement to easy access to the information of the rules they need to follow. that's why we want ttip to have a commitment on both sides to some sort of online -- one stop shop for all the relevant information on accessing each other's market. third, geographical indication, this is also something that is very important for many of the eu member states. geographical indications operate in many countries around the world, not only in the eu, and they are like all forms of international property. they reassure consumers, they compensate to produce for the quality and know how and they are difficult to enforce when products are exported around the world. and that's why, like patents or trademarks, geographical

indications need to be protected in trade agreements. and this is feasible. we have had strong provisions on geographical indication with countries such as canada and singapore. and vietnam. and both are countries without history of this kind of protection. of course, the u.s. is different, and we have had long debates on this issue, and we are, of course, ready to find reasonable approach, meaning that the vast majority of the indications we want to see protected do not conflict with existing u.s. standards, and for the small number that does, we have to find pragmatic results. willing to do this, of course, within the framework of the u.s. legal system. this is difficult. we had a long discussion yesterday, but i want to repeat,

this is really important for our constituency at home. we need high quality result here. and the final issue here on rules is investment protection. this is a very sensitive part of the negotiations, particularly sensitive in many of our member states in the european union. but i think it is a global debate. we, of course, share the view that investment protection is vital to promote growth and jobs, by supporting the deepening of global value chains. and investment, foreign investment is more vulnerable than domestic investment, so there can be cases when it needs extra protection.

we need to address the people's legitimate concerns. and that is why we have ex-barked in the european union to try to reform that system much more transparent, much more focused in order to avoid abuse, and to make sure that we can respect democratic choices to regulate in the public interests. this is a new investment court system we have proposed that we have in our agreements with vietnam and canada and that we are right now discussing with the u.s. so getting a deal like this will not be easy to do this before the end of the president obama's administration. it will require both sides to do its utmost, and to do not only what we have done in traditional trade agreements, but to go further. we will need to adopt. i think it is possible. because if we make this adoption, it is worthwhile and we do have to date the political support to do it. we have tough debates in the european union. we have resistance, we have demonstrations, absolutely. but we have unanimous mandate from all 28 countries. and that commitment remains. and in the u.s., i know that there is a very intense debate

on trade as well. but we have a strong support in the administration and from members of the congress on both sides of it. and even in these trying times for trade in this country, i have noticed that the focus is not on ttip, but mainly on tpp. i think people understand tpp and ttip are different issues, different parties. the european union is like the u.s. highly developed economy. it is the world's largest market. we have some of the world's highest regulatory standards. and the competition due to lower labor standards is also an issue with the eu. and we have strong protections for all kinds of intellectual property including biologics, and when people come to look at ttip in more detail, i hope the support will be there for the concessions needed. and also i think it is possible because we know each other. we understand each other's politics. we know the constituencies that need to be on board for the outcome, farmers, key business sectors, trade unions or consumers. we know our requests need to be reasonable. we know we have to respect and respond to each side's reasonable requests. and what we are looking for on procurement, on services, on regulatory cooperation, investment, geographical indication that is doable if there is enough political will. we have, of course, like the u.s. our red lines, but we fully understand the objectives that the congress have said for this administration as well through

the trade promotion authority. we can't do it alone, we will need to work closely together. the eu and the u.s. and with our different constituencies and i look forward to continuing to do that. because ttip is worth the effort. it is a positive response to the concerns and globalization that are shaking our political systems on both sides of the atlantic. it is a way to strengthen our friendship, our alliance and partnership. p in ttip stands for partnership. we share so much values and history in a different world and friends must stick together. our people need the opportunities that this can provide and i'm very happy and looking forward to the possibility to discuss this with the panel and with all of you. thank you, again, for inviting me. [ applause ]

>> all right, well, welcome again to this -- pleasure to be part of this very distinguished panel here. obviously timing is everything. and i'll just jump into one of the big -- we'll be taking stock of where ttip is, but obviously the big -- one of the big questions of the day here, commissioner, can ttip survive brexit? and how does that happen? >> of course it can. but that's what -- you didn't pay attention. [ laughter ] of course it can. and it will. as i said, there are a lot of uncertainties related to brexit. we can't answer them now and we will have to wait until we see a more clearer picture of that, but for now, and for the

immediate future, the united kingdom is a member of the european union. and we negotiated this on behalf of all of the 28 members. yesterday at the european council there was confirmation by all members of -- all the prime ministers and heads of state that our trade agenda will continue. so i think it makes even more sense to continue with ttip for right now. later we'll have to take some decisions when we see which way the uk is going, but for the moment, it is there, the u.s. -- the u.s. and the eu have all the reason in the world to facilitate trade between us and that hasn't changed. so, yes, ttip will survive brexit.

>> with the understanding that eventually britain would be perhaps part of this, perhaps not, how do you -- will british negotiators do you expect they'll be in the room, do you expect -- i know at the council discussions in brussels already there has been talk about whether members of the commission and negotiators are supposed to be even discussing issues regarding the departure of the uk. can they even talk to each other? how does that -- from what you you've been planning so far, how does that work practically speaking going forward? >> well, it is the commission and the commission team who negotiated this. we have british citizens in our team, they remain, they do not work for the uk. they work for the european union and they will stay. and that was a clear message by president the other day.

before the negotiation round, we discussed with representatives on member states, we discussed with the trade ministers to keep them informed and to seek their support for each step we'll be taking. i have no reason to believe that the uk will not be in the room when we discuss this. and as i say, when they're members, they have the full competences to do that. they have been very supportive, uk is one of the strongest voice for free trade, that is one of the reasons i will be sad to see them leaving. and i guess they will. will they eventually be part of the agreement or not? that remains to be seen. maybe they can join afterwards or maybe they -- well, it is a little bit too early to say that. but i don't count on them being difficult, of course, we can talk to our british friends, but you refer to that statement by president juncker, we can't have 28 different parallel negotiations going on, we have to be patient and wait for the article 50 and the uk to sort of define their vision of their relation with the eu before we can start negotiating.

in the meantime, business has to go on as usual. we are still 27 who will remain. we still have a huge agenda, trade is only one of them, but we have a few other challenges on migration, security, economy, and that has to remain. i think it would be detrimental to all of the citizens if we now started to have some sort of paralysis and not do anything. >> okay. we'll come back to all of this. mr. trumka, i wanted to ask, as the commissioner mentioned, tpp has been the high level trade -- the more controversial trade negotiation going on now in the american context. and it is -- the conventional wisdom has been that ttip, you're not going to see the same kind of potentially the same kind of concerns from organized labor that you've seen on tpp and the debate might be a little bit less contentious on the american side as opposed to the european side where it is very contentious. what do you say to that to start

off? before we get into your face-off with donald trump yesterday. >> that was a fun time. first of all, let me compliment the commissioner on the transparency of releasing your proposals after you lay them down on the table. we don't do that in this country. if any of us get to see the proposals, we have to sign a statement saying we won't divulge it to anybody. i just thought about something. if they give them to you, do you divulge them to people in europe, the u.s. proposals? >> no, we can't do that because we're not legally constrained. what we do is that the so-called consolidated text, chapters, we have both negotiated, we keep them in the reading booth, so national parliamentens and members have access to them, but in reading rooms. >> so you can't release them. >> we cannot release a foreign country document, no. >> why is that? you can release your, but you can't release ours? >> well, we can decide upon our own documents, but we can't decide upon documents that belongs to another country. >> that's part of the problem.

see, they get to debate things over there and we sort of do all this in secrecy and the secrecy shrouds these agreements and you wonder who is really submitting these rules. where do they come from? i'm going to say this, every question you ask me, i'm going to say the following words. the question is about whether to trade or not trade. it is about what the rules are, and who benefits from the rules. so applying that standard to ttip, there is a much greater likelihood that ttip could meet the standard and benefit working people. if, in fact, it doesn't, if it can be used, or intentionally or unintentionally, to lower standards, to do away with regulations, to undermine states and local ability to control their own economies, then you will see a backlash here as well.

and you will see not only the american labor movement, but the other 70 to 75% of the american population that believes these agreements haven't been good for them. you'll see them standing up and speaking out. >> okay. >> in terms of the brexit debate, particularly, you worried at all that the departure of the eu -- the uk or the -- in any sense reduced influence by the uk on the ttip negotiations will complicate things. what was a challenging deal to get done this year will make it impossible? >> couple of comments to begin with. one, u.p.s. is trade. we operate in 220 countries and territories and we cross borders every day. we are big champions of trade. we're also big believers in high standards. we're a proud union company that believes in ensuring that our people are well paid, that safety is at the highest standards, that we protect our people in every aspect of the work that we do because at the end of the day, our success depends on our people.

we believe trade agreements are a great way for advancing these high standards, as well as creating growth and opportunities. every 22 packages that cross the border support a job in our network. and the fact is that every free trade agreement that has been negotiated by the u.s. we have seen a 20% volume increase. why is that? because the small and medium sized companies that ship with u.p.s. are able to access more markets. so from that perspective, we want to see more trade happening everywhere. u.p.s. delivers the goods that are made by the world, for the world, to the rest of the world. and so agreements like ttip and agreements like ttip are so critically important for creating those kinds of economic opportunities and raising those standards. from the perspective of the uk and their decision to leave the eu, u.p.s.' goal will be to make sure our customers in the uk and our customers in the rest of the world can continue to trade. there is going to be some

practical implications to some of the changes that are going to occur. if they do decide to exercise their exit from the eu, u.p.s.' goal is to make it possible for people to keep doing the business that they're doing, because at the end of the day, that trade has allowed the uk to continue to grow, the european market to continue to grow and the u.s. market to continue to grow. and so are we worried about what the implications of brexit are? we don't like the uncertainty. but we have learned to operate in a lot of uncertain situations. and what we fall back on is great service, understanding the processes and delivering that to our customers. and we're going to continue to do that. with the uk in, with the uk out. >> let me ask you this, this is a question for all of you, obviously, where you are in the presidential campaign here. president hillary clinton, president donald trump on ttip.

what do you all think? how would it shake out? who wants to start? >> i get the question all the time about what u.p.s. thinks about a clinton presidency or a trump presidency? and i tell my ceo, it doesn't matter to me who the president of the united states is, my job is to make sure that either candidate, whoever they are, understands what is at stake for our employees, and the growth of our business. and so from that perspective, our job is maybe a little bit more challenging given some of the statements that have been made about trade, it is our job to go in and explain how we do what we do at u.p.s., what our customers need to be able to grow, some of the challenges they face at the borders because there is a lot of friction at the borders that affects small and medium sized companies that we need to address, and we need to convince both candidates about the importance of continuing to engage in a robust trade agenda. because it is at the heart of

growth, not just for the u.s. or europe, but the global economy. period, full stop. >> i would say the actual negotiations would be a lot more pleasant under hillary than they would under donald, given his lack of patience with people and his intolerance for disagreements or differing points of view. i think workers would fare much better under hillary clinton's administration because she cares more, she cares about our values more than he does. i think the likelihood of him wanting to be -- show how macho he really is, the first thing out of the chute would make getting an agreement more difficult. because i'm not so sure it would be about negotiations, as much as it would be about imposing someone's point of view on someone else. and between long-term friends and trading partners, i don't

think that's necessarily a good way to do business. >> okay. >> obviously, as a represent of the european commission, we have no view of who should be the next president of the united states. but whoever is the president of the united states, he or she is one of the most, you know, powerful persons in the world. and one would hope that the relationship between the eu and the u.s., so important not only in trade, but for so many other reasons, would remain somehow. would it be easier with one or the other? maybe. but we will have to deal with whoever it is. >> do you -- are you -- obviously the way the political context behind trade politics and the u.s. changed quite a bit in the last year because you have both parties, a strong, you

know, concerns about trade, skeptics of trade, really taking center stage. does that -- how has that affected ttip negotiations thus far? how has the presidential campaign in the background playing out, how is that affecting your job? >> it is obvious they are in the background, you have an increasingly anti-trade debate in this country, but we have it in europe as well. we see it in many other countries. trade, globalization, it is frustration, we have gone through a terrible economic crisis, not quite out of it, many people have suffered. so, of course, this is in the background of our discussions. i haven't heard, i might miss it, but i'm trying to see, i haven't heard neither candidate, trump or hillary clinton mentioning ttip at all, actually. so obviously ttip is not really on the radar so far at least in the presidential campaign here. so what we have said together

with ambassador froman and his team is that we continue, of course, political events might, once the campaign becomes even more intense face and the election date gets closer, it could complicate final concessions that are needed. that is totally normal in all countries. so far we are moving full steam ahead and see what can be done. i think we owe that to our constituencies who have given us that mandate. >> to achieve the goal of getting a deal or an arrangement or whatever it would be called exactly in place by before president obama leaves office, in terms of a time table, what has to happen? when do you have to get that done? >> i think theoretically it could be close to 19th of january. >> given that you just said that once the election happens everything changes. >> i think of course it is totally realistic that even if we agree tomorrow that an agreement will be voted and ratified and signed and stamped neither here or in our countries so have an agreement that is

there and that we have to say this is it. obviously the next administration will have to deal with that package. but that work can go on i think through half of january if there is the political maneuver and will. we are pushing. we have the next round of negotiations in july starting 11th of july. we will be meeting with our teams on different levels before that time and after and then we will have a meeting with -- i will come back here just after the summer. constant meetings and telephone calls and video conferences. >> the instant that people believe that this agreement could be a reality before the end of this term you don't get injected into presidential politics. the more you go around the country saying we are going to have it done before the end of

the year the more likely it is that it will become a presidential issue. you might not like the results of that, but it will become a presidential issue. the likelihood of it getting through being a reality and getting a vote is zero and none. there is no chance which would mean it is put off into the next president's term no matter what it is and both of those presidents are going to want to put on an agreement. they may want to scrap it. if it doesn't meet the needs of working people. one of them may want to scrap it for the sake of showing that he is scrapping it. so it's a complicated subject and you make it more complicated by pretending that there will be an agreement before the end of the year because i don't see any likelihood at all of that happening. >> if that doesn't happen, if it goes beyond this year then you have french elections, german

elections. does the political landscape become harder to get it done anytime in the next few years? >> optimism is a duty. and i think of course there are elections. there are hurdles. there is the rhetoric right now that when all of this has calmed down i think we realize that making trade easier between the two biggest economic partners who trade a lot is a good thing. how we do it is the question. that is why we are negotiating. i would imagine that this rational remains for quite some time. if you don't get it done before the end of the mandate we will have to move as much as possible so it is at a point of no return. then we have to see with the next administration. there will be elections also in germany and france and a few other countries. there are always elections.

oo r we will have to see. >> everything we are talking about is not just u.s. and eu. it is the rest of the world that as we are talking about issues china, japan, korea pursuing the agreement. the rest of the world is continuing to negotiate free trade agreements and set certain rules of trade. at the end of the day i would rather have u.s. and european negotiators where we share the same values addressing those kinds of issues. i'm thinking about how to address a greater partnership to allow trade to flourish and counter cyber security threats out there.

i would like to see ways to promote greater integration through protections that aren't just u.s. and european but allow the ability to bring those life saving medicines to anyone and everyone in the world. ups will ship them there but you need the property right protection so that the investment is protected and access that people need to those medicines can be encouraged. and i think that comes through a good robust dialogue between u.s. and european negotiators and that is what is at stake in this agreement. we talked about the fact that it really is about two allies, two friends, two partners coming together really setting rules for globalization. we want to have high standard labor agreements. we want strong investment protections. we want protection for intellectual property. we have a lot of things that we

want to ensure become globalized in a high standard way and not lowering regulations. i think about where ups stands on sustainability. we want to have good green standards everywhere in the world but you do that when you come together and you reach agreement and that can happen. but not if we abandon all trade. >> i don't think anybody is suggesting -- i know we are not because the question isn't about whether to trade or not. the question is about what the rules are and who benefit from the rules. if you look at this situation it could very well be that you come up with a great agreement. it can also be that you come up with a very bad agreement. let's set the parameters about what is at stake here. this isn't some growth for europe or the united states. the recent studies say that in 15 years europe will achieve 0.5% additional growth and the u.s. will get 0.4%. so this isn't some great

strategy for growth. this could be political that we want tohave friends make stronger ties with friends. i'm all for that. but it could be that it is weaker things. all the rules you are setting up that i have seen they have all been tools that can be used to decrease existing standards downward. and so we're a little skeptical and we are a little skeptical because we have been promised manna from heaven with every trade agreement that came town, and manna hasn't come from

heaven. we have seen the wrath from the other place in most instances. so workers are a little bit skeptical about this. and i will repeat what i said earlier. if ever there was a chance for us to get it right, this is the agreement that we can get it right in. and i hope we do. but we are concerned. we're concerned about a special court system being set up. we are doing tremendous investment in business back and forth. so what is the need for it? when we ask that we are told you have to have something. we have a court system. and that court system is good enough for every citizen here. it ought to be good enough for investors. we will have a special court system that has a very loose standard. fair and equitable treatment. so in part of the proposals you had the retailers association put in proposals and you had wal-mart put in a proposal that says eliminate local locations, geographical locations. make that violate the standard.

why did they do that? because they wanted to eliminate zoning standards and make that so they can use it. this is the only system in the world where someone is killing you you have to pay them to stop killing you. that is exactly what happens with the system. if they are giving you a product that causes cancer and we stop it, the government has to pay them because they stopped it and hit their bottom line because of this nebulous standard of fair and equitable treatment. if it isn't fair and equitable treatment i pay you to stop doing what you're doing. that makes us a bit nervous. it makes us want to say he's coomb up with a different standard. i applaud you for some of the

things that you did on the labor and environmental side. i appla things that you did on the labor and environmental side. standar. i applaud you for some of the things that you did on the labor and environmental side. i think they are healthy. i think they better define what they mean and don't mean. but the ics or isds is simply a point that is unnecessary and nobody has made the case about why it is necessary when we have two court systems that are highly developed that we have trillions of dollars of investment that have been brought in without it and now suddenly we need special court for foreign investors that doesn't apply to any citizen. >> on that point you are obviously having a lot of concerns on both sides about this court setup. from the labor side and the business side. there are concerns about changing the previous arrangement. where do things stand on that in

the context of ttp negotiations? are you closer? how are you managing those competing views and are you any closer to finding a solution? >> yes. first let me start by saying that of course agreement however successful it is is not the only answer to growth. it is a part of it. as you are and as we are, we are negotiating around 20 trade agreements right now. trade is important for growth. it has proven very important. we have very, very active stakeholders not only in the united states but different stakeholders who follow negotiations closely and scrutinize and follow whatever comes out of it closely. there is no way to preclude an agreement that is not setting high standards and is irreversible in making sure that the standards can only be higher

and never lower. and on this investment system because this is probably the most toxic acronym in the european union, has been for quite some years, what are we talking about? talking about foreign investment in another country. foreign investment is a little bit more vulnerable than domestic. that is why the world has since 1959 set up thousands of bilateral investment treaties in order to protect that. there are some cases where there has been abuses. tried to use it in a way to stop countries to do regulate to protect environment or the citizens. the european union has around 1,500 of these investment agreements. they are in need of

organization. this is a discussion not only taking place here and in europe, in south africa, malaysia, all over. so we thought that ttp because we had such high expectations and we still have could be a moment to reform this, to recognize there could be cases, very few between the eu and u.s. most cases can be solved in ordinary courts. as we also want to set standards for the world this could be a way. u.s. has nine bilateral agreements with eastern and central european countries. this is a way to abolish them and replace them with a new system because they are there. they will not go away. in our mandate and this is clear we should seek some sort of protection. what we have proposed is a system much more transparent that limits abuse, that defines when it can be used and not and where we have an appeals system, court of pool of preselected

judges instead of lawyers in order to make it more transparent and more court like system. this could be something we could work on globally to replace all of this. it is in there. it has been developed in very close cooperation with member states. so i think it would be very few cases with the u.s. because we both have robust legal systems. but it could set the tone for other countries. we are discussing this with the u.s. the u.s. perfectly agreed that we should have transparency. they have gone through different systems, as well, or reforms. it is a debate expected in the congress. i understand. but we haven't concluded that chapter yet. so we will see where we get it.

tpp, so many acronyms, in tpp there is something similar. if the european union would enter trade agreement with the u.s. where peruvian, canadian, malaysian, companies would better protected than europe that is a difficult thing to defend. >> it is sort of a circular argument to say they are there so they should stay there. if they are unfair here and here they are unfair. that is what this system is. if you say there will be very few cases, it's all the more reason not to have a special court system for foreign investors that locks out the general public and citizens in every country. let the courts handle it. it has done well for years and years and years since we left england in 1776. it has been a wonderful experience for us. >> if i could just jump in.

>> before we go to questions. yes. >> incredible value in terms of getting it right with respect to investor protections between the u.s. and the eu because as you point out the system has been working quite well. this is hopefully going to be an open platform agreement that will result in the adoption of these kinds of high standards by other countries. i think about the bilateral investment treaty negotiations underway with china. we don't have strong investor protections right now in china. and i don't have as much confidence in the chinese court system as i do in european or american courts. and therefore i see great value in terms of setting that standard and then bringing the chinese along. i can say that from very personal experience. >> if i were dealing with china, i would probably want that same system. but we're not dealing with china here. this is two countries, two markets that have dealt with each other for hundreds of years, have highly developed court systems that do not need a special court system for foreign investors. >> i argue there is strong

robust trans atlantic trade. we make products that we send to the rest of the world. it is in our interest to have u.s. and european standards be the ones by which the rest of the world tries to reach up to and that i think protects u.s. and european companies. >> that is another circular argument. we are told we need these systems in place so we can make their court systems come up to speed. you're using it the opposite to say because they are up to speed we need them out there so they don't come up to speed. you have to make a decision. it either helps them develop a court system or it doesn't. you can't have it both ways. >> on that note i think i have to cut everybody off because it is time to let our friends to have a chance at a few questions. we will take two questions at a time.

back there and here. >> this is carrie o'donoghue from bbc news. commissioner, can i ask you what kind of access do you think the uk can get to the single market if it doesn't agree to freedom of movement? >> i can't answer that. the access to freedom of market with that comes freedom of movement. there are four movements in the european you on. they are interlinked and go together. >> hi, thank you. jim berger. simple question i heard a lot of talk about ttip. i haven't heard a lot about

political will. does political will include a willingness for both sides to make serious compromises? i haven't heard the word compromise much in two years. >> i think i said concessions. i'm not a native english speaker. maybe -- no, i didn't use that word. but obviously if we were not ready to compromise, why would we engage in negotiations. we need to compromise and see what is on the table, what are your priorities? are they enough so that you can compromise on those and that makes it complicated but that is why we engage on this. we need to compromise. the whole european union is about compromising actually. we're quite good at compromising. >> up here and then all the way in the back. >> hi, my name is --

adam single. i'm curious at what point during article 50 if it gets used by uk to pull out would that change change the priorities for your office in negotiating the ttip, that beginning, that towards the end, is that after formally leaving, is during the process? when does that begin to alter how the commission sees its priorities? thanks. >> well, first of all, the british government has had to vote to trigger 50. that obviously wouldn't not happen before september at least. the president of the european council, donald tusk called for an extraordinary meeting in september to discuss and to take stock where we are. i think it depends. this sort of formal exit discussions that would take

place, how do you leave, what pace to the members of parliament, the others, the budget, the different funds, all these technical things that need to be negotiated with the uk. that is what article 50 is about. then comes what kind of relationship shall we have with the uk. do they want a sort of total independence relationship, seeking a free trade with us and nothing else? do they want a norwegian solution? we don't know. that is up to them to define. this is our objective, and then it has to be discussed. so very much will depend on that. once they exit the european union, of course, of course they need to exit all our trade agreements as well. and they need to renegotiate if they think that is appropriate. the old ones that we have, around 37 plus w-2 and the others we have to see case by case what to do with the uk part

of it. so that would be quite heavy exercise. but it cannot start before we know what kind of relationship they want to have. but think do not -- i think whatever solution the uk chooses, they cannot sort of automatically be in our trade agreements still. they have to go out. norway is not part of our trade agreement, for instance, even if they are part of the internal market. so that is an exercise that will have to start, once we have more clarity. >> all the way in the back. >> thank you. "the wall street journal." i'm just wondering, ms. malmstrom, how will you set the priorities for trade negotiations and other negotiations? you have the eu exiting the -- sorry, the uk exiting the european union perhaps.

the uk doesn't have its own trade negotiators now. it might recall some from the eu, i guess. then you'll also need to be working on the ttip deal with the u.s. will you divide your negotiating teams? will you add more? some of the uk voters seem to think they're limitless civil servants in brussels. but you have to make priorities and it would be interesting to know what that might be. mr. trumka, could you say whether you support a no frills trade talks with the uk as some of the republican leaders have. thanks. >> thank you very much for the concern about our staffing. they are already very much overstretched by ttip, we're discussing that today. we are negotiating about 20 agreement. we have just finished with vietnam and canada. we're negotiating with the philippines, with mexico, with tunisia. we are preparing chile, with indonesia, australia, new zealand, and i have probably

forgotten a few. we already have a heavy agenda. and where exact in that line we would put the uk i'm not in a position to tell you today. but we'll of course reflect upon that i don't want that headline to be in "the wall street journal" tomorrow. >> i don't know what a no-frill trades agreement. if somebody might define that for me, it might be better off. look, england, where they are in the eu or not in the eu are great friends and great allies. and we're going to remain close, and we're going to continue to do trade and do business with them. and soy don't have anything to say beyond that. they are friends. they are allies. and we would treat them as friends and allies. >> a few questions over here. >> thank you. there first. >> hi, brad fortnam from inside

u.s. trade. first only the ttip negotiations. i know you mentioned you're still on track and still conclude them in 2016. in terms of when the end game phase would start, my understanding is there is a stock taking of trade ministers in september. >> i can't hear you. you have to speak -- >> sorry. you mentioned you're still on track to potentially conclude in 2016. now my understanding is there is a stock taking of trade ministers in september that could determine whether or not you'd enter the end game. and you've mentioned your priority there's. are those priorities being addressed? and do you expect those to move forward at this upcoming ground in july? is the u.s. moving on their positions on things such as public procurement and services? and could you also just clarify one aspect of article 50 for me? you mentioned the trade

relationship with the uk being negotiated. would that happen after the article 15 negotiations or as part of it? >> first on that, the article has never been used. so there is -- there are lots of question marks exactly on what it goes. this -- i mean, i think there are different views on this. but that's why we need some time to reflect. the result was only known on friday. today it's wednesday. we need some time to think and to reflect. and that's ultimate decision by heads of states. so the other 27. can they go in parallel, or do we have to do a few things before. so i don't know is the honest answer. for the rest, yes, absolutely. we will have a trade ministerial meeting in september. we meet with the trade ministers regularly. it's one of the new ones, the presidency of slovakia where i will take stock and i will tell them then give the evaluation of the july round and of the talks

we've had over the summer on all the issues that you mentioned and i mention in my speeches as well. these are priorities for us. member states will expect that there is a sufficient way forward already agreed a path towards as well. and this is what we will discuss. but that is the end of september, and we still have some work to do before then. >> i think we have one last question up here. >> thank you. nelson cunningham. also a board member of the atlantic council. you mentioned that the ttip talks could be considered a -- an open platform for others to add. well, today president obama is in ottawa meeting with prime minister trudeau and with the mexican president for north american summit. there was some talk of whether or not the nafta countries might join with the u.s. in ttip talks. what would be your view looking at the future to have canada and

mexico join the ttip discussions? and mr. trumka, what would your position be on that? >> anything that gives us a chance to redo nafta would be a great opportunity from our point of view. >> i don't comment on that particular aspect, but we have said all the time from the european union to make ttip an open platform. first we have to conclude it. but after that, we think it's a good idea if others could join. when we haven't started negotiations on this because we have to conclude. but hen we talked about we were imagining maybe mexico and canada. from our side there has been some discussions countries like norway or turkey then maybe the uk could be one of these as well depending. so i think it's a good idea to have an open platform. and we would welcome these countries and possibly others as well. >> and with that, i think we have to wrap things up. thank you so much again,

everyone. thank you, everyone also on our panel here. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> i really do. [ applause ]

next on american history tv, we hear from historians and activists who reflect on the historical arc of the civil rights movement. this discussion part of a three-day conference called the future of the african american past. it was co-hosted by the american historical association and the smithsonian national museum of african american history and culture, which opens this september on the national mall. this is an hour 40 minutes. >> this morning i got a call from a reporter who wanted to know why would the museum at a