that die nynamic is never to be underestimated from a negotiation with 27 partners around whom you can go and talk and try to reach a consensus. there is actually a legal structure within which this will happen. peter said, article 50 is only one part of the negotiation. it is the air brushing of the uk out of the treaties and all the tidying up that needs to be done to make it happen. that is complicated. at the end of the day, it is straight forward in the sense of what you are trying to do. the second part, however, is what is the new relationship. that is going to be more complicated. that will not be negotiated under article 50 depending on what the uk suggests and proposes as the starting point. then, given that article 50 has a time limit of two years, there is no time limit on the negotiating the new arrangement, depending on what that is. if it is a classical trade

agreement, then the classical time frame would be six, seven, eight years, along those lines. that's what it takes to negotiate an important trade agreement. maybe it could be done quickly. that's the sort of time frame. there's a question, is there a transition between the end of the article 50 and the completion of the new relationship? all of this is unchartered territory. nobody has been here before and we are going to find out how this works. i think in terms of the most important message i want to give is in terms of the 27. there will be now a dynamic of the relationship of the -- under the political control of the 27 and the european parliament to forge common positions and to address the issues which the uk will put on the table. that is very different from the positions taken by individual countries at different points as gerard and peter said. different people going out and

speaking and taking positions. it's one thing, what you say, this is my national position at this point and time. it's another when you sit around and agree a common position which you ask the commission to present to the united kingdom. >> i have been struck by the common theme -- an accomplished diplomatic set of panelists here. it seems to imply that the uk, at the end of this process, as uncharted as it may be, at the end of the day, one would expect the uk to have a status that is somewhat different from other third countries out there. and that the -- even with the fundmental fr mt aamental free on/off switch, but a spectrum of

negotiations. >> no. sorry. i mean, i don't think everything is up for negotiation. i think that needs to be clear. peter made that clear and others made it clear. the single market is the freedoms. people talk about access to the single market it's a contradiction in terms. the single market is the four freedoms including the movement of people. if you want a trade access to the european union without freedom of movement, it's something else. i mean, i think there are certain fundamental values of the european system that i don't want to say are nongauchable, but at the core of the difference of being in the european union and outside the european union. yes, as others said, everyone comes as adults wishing a sense of outcome. the uk is never going to be a third country. it's an integral part of the

european history. it's part of nato. no one is going to want to damage that relationship. on the other hand, there is going to be a difference as colleagues have said between being inside the european union and outside. it's something we are not going to explore how it is developed. the idea everything is up for negotiation and it's all a spectrum and somehow any outcome is possible, i think, frankly, i don't think that is where we are. >> ambassador araud. i want to continue with what's going on in europe. from your vantage point, do you believe the answer in light of some of the tensions to be an an tech dote to be more of europe or less of europe? it's certainly an important question. there are lots of responses. the french government has taken a very interesting position, i

think, when it comes to everything from military bases and military solidarity to rethinking the economic bases of varying regulatory agendas. if you had any comments or thoughts on that. >> when you ask the question to french diplomat, immediately the answer is better, you hope. you know, really. i have to learn my job. so better, you hope. no, again, the problem that we have been facing is obviously the fact that a lot of our citizens, not only in the uk, a lot of our citizens are disenchanted versus -- considering -- i think david said was on the front line of globalization. for my generation, your hope was something which really we

couldn't question. you know, it was the way they -- the war that devastated the continent and pros pearity and security. it was all these elements. obviously for a lot of europeans and especially -- it's not anymore the case. we have to their concerns. so, you know, already you know decisions have been taken, you know, for instance, to have a very, a real, you know, a real body guard on the borders of europe. you know, really, it's clear that the immigration crisis has been a strong element in the vote of the british and it's a general concern throughout europe and not only -- we have to ensure the safety of our voters if we want to keep the freedom of circulation.

we have also, to answer in terms of security, security, you know, we are victims of terrorism so it means that, for instance, we could have you know what is the -- during the u.s., you know, you have to feel that before arriving. we could have it which would be a way of checking the circulation of the people. another element is that prosperi prosperity. you know, the crisis of the european union is largely the reserve of the economic crisis that actually most of the european countries are going through. now, since you have generously exported the crisis in 2008-2009. we knew we needed investments.

again, there are also the question about tax. you know, the tax. pay .005% of its profit as a tax in europe. you know, that's totally unacceptable in not only, you know, in financial terms, but political terms. we have to also think in terms of tax fairness, social fairness. we have all sort of questions to answer, which don't really are not obliging us into a debate about more or less europe. again, it's better, you hope. in europe, which is responding to the concerns of our citizens. >> i wanted ambassador wittig to respond as well.

you have pinned an interesting and well written op-ed in the washingt"washington post" calle write europe off." in light of your comments there and in light of ambassador ar d araud's comments, do we not write them off, but into a better europe? >> yes, i do think that americans in all of us we should not write europe off. although, i must admit, this brexit came as a talk. it really triggered a lot of soul searching, which is now the face that we are in and it's kind of natural that we are now questioning ourselves, what can we do better? i think it's three things. first, we have to deliver better on the expectations of our citizens. we have to make regain their

trust and ask each and every measure how does this benefit the citizen? does he see tangible results? second, and my friend i think mentioned this. we have to focus on the call business. the call business is defense. here, france and germany presented ideas to make europe a stronger defense union, no to nato, but harmonize it better with nato. to protect internal and external borders, to fight terrorism. also, the economic damage. be a more competitive europe. those issues. there, we have to focus what is it that we can do only together

as 27. that's what we should do. and the third thing is, we have to unmask the truth behind all this rhetoric, the antibrussels anti-eu that is rampant. i think there are real issues behind it of so-called losers of globalization. there is also a scapegoat in a big way going on. some of us in the member states are guilty of blaming brussels for our own defects and what is going on or what is going wrong in our countries. that has to stop. otherwise, we would not regain the trust of our citizens. >> i know there are some questions in the audience and i'm going to the extent to which folks have microphones to key up the proprocess.

one for ambassador o'sullivan, a lot of folks in washington, d.c. and the rest of the country may be interested in. japan and other countries highlighted the fact that third party countries like the united states have an interest in brexit, not just because it's one of the really, the largest trading block and a key partner for the united states, but there are question that is arise as to the rights of third party countries where they have interests either in the uk or frankly, vice versa. what can or should folks in the united states do to really think through what the likely outcome is for those interests and to what extent has washington d.c. been involved in those discussions in the european union?

>> well, i think that's a good question. firstly, there have not been a huge amount of discussions. i think it is quite important to get this message across. sometimes people think we are already engaged in almost the end game of this discussion and frankly haven't begun. we are at a very, very early stage. you can see from the discussions which we all follow in the press, the intensity of the debate within the united kingdom and bringing new revelation of disagreement or a new approach. we owe it to the british government and people to give them the space and sort it out and come forward with a thought out position which reflects where they, how they see this and where they want to go. until that happens, it's difficult for the rest of us to actually respond beyond the sort of things they have been saying here, which i think are prote protecting our interest as the 27 and wishing to have the best

possible relationship in this world, whatever it looks like with a close friend and ally, which will be the united kingdom under any circumstances. i think the first thing i would say, you are absolutely right. i think this is a big question which affects everyone. this is one of these tricky issues where you have a referendum in one country, which i understand, which is within the jurisdictions of one sovereign nation, but has ramifications for everyone. it has ramifications for the rest of us in the eu because it profoundly affects the future development. it has profound effects for alliances like the united states, both geo political and strategic and economic in commercial. massive investment in europe and in the uk. what are those investments worth? how are they going to be managed going forward?

the japanese came forward with a very elaborate paper because they are a major investor. peter kmec also said we have major economies of the world. a very important deal now with canada and we have them with south korea. we are negotiating with japan. we are upgrading our deal with mexi mexico, chile. again, the stakes are high with how do we deal with a uk that is no longer a party to those agreements? the global stakes are very high. my first advice, however, to everyone from outside is on the one hand to be as honest as they can with the uk about how they perceive this and what they perceive as their interest and what they would like. i think the uk needs to have that information before it takes its sovereign decision. secondly, to keep distance from this and let us, as europeans try to find a way forward.

i think people jumping too quickly to say, oh, no, i figured it out. i know what you need to do. this is it. this is a a process that is going to take time to work through on the part of the united kingdom and the 27 as we go forward for two and a half years. thinking and evolve what are the issues, the solutions, what might work. i think, ultimately, the earlier message is one of patience and letting time do its own job in this is going to be an important part. you can't rush to judgment on any of these issues, especially when there are so many issues which is new and we need time to figure out how to arrive at solutions to respect the decision of the british people the interest and values of the 27 going forward with the strong

commitment, political and economic that we have to taking the process of european integration further and the international partner who is have a strong shake. we continue to have an environment which is vital for competitiveness. the greater process, some of the colleagues mentioned it is now on the uk side. it's really very important to watch the dynamics of the final decision by the uk. the government only or there are some considerations that the british parliament can step in. of course the great repeal, but also to say whether they want or would like to have a hard brexit or a softer brexit.

the second thing is the situation in scotland. the question remains whether the uk, does london represent the whole uk. that will influence, definitely the considerations on the eu 27 side because, as you know, we are facing the elections to the european parliament in the second of 2019. we have to decide whether we need to prepare the election for 27 or still for 28. it needs to be a gradual process, but i don't want to service it. i think that march, 2017 might be the last deadline for presenting a uk position. thank you. >> i did see some hands up. mr. turner? did we have a microphone? excellent.

>> thank you. from the institute of international finance. i would like to ask any of the ambassadors, whoever would like to respond, i think that's for both the uk and eu 27 have agreed on one thing. that is enter eu integration is a bad thing. we want the benefit of single market but without the burden of enter eu integration. the rest of the eu say no freedoms have to go together with single market. you cannot cherry pick meaning you cannot have the good parts without the bad parts. that is integration. can you change the narrative to say enter eu immigration is one of the best things that has ever happened to the eu? because countries in the eu with aging population to grow more than otherwise it could. >> would anyone like to answer

that question? >> sorry. >> thank you. please. >> i don't know whether you can change the narrative. immigration is such a powerful paradigm right now and it inspires a lot of fears. maybe just a reminder how this came about. in 2004, the eu accepted in a big bang ten mostly eastern european countries. that was a measure to stabilize eastern europe. some of them were probably not as mature to enter the eu as we would have wished. it was one of those assets of the european union to prove that it is a project of peace, stability and prosperity more than an economic cloud. at that time, many leaders said it's too early to grant them freedom of movement and settle

down and exercise that profession so we agreed or most of the countries agreed to have a transition period of seven years, to wave that freedom of movement. there were two, if i'm not mistaken, two country that is didn't accept that waiver and that was sweden and the uk. >> and ireland. >> and ireland. it was prime minister blare, at the time, who said welcome. they should come. so they came from poland, from other countries. and in a way, if i may say so, it was a self-inflicted wound that later on there was certain resentment in the uk against those intraeu immigration although, at a previous stage, safe to say, this immigration benefited not only the immigrants, but the uk economy and maybe -- well, it's not a

story to change the narrative. it's useful to remember that story. >> if i may just -- i mean i think peter is absolutely right historically correct. i think it is true perhaps the uk is being the single biggest of the three economy that is opened. you had very large numbers of european people coming to ireland. 250,000 living there and working there. many went back after the the aftermath. everyone thinks it's been beneficial to all concerned. i think generally speaking, that was the point i made, int intraeuropean migration. the populous vote tends to focus on extra european migration and particularly with the refugee crisis and asylum seekers.

i think it is important to make that distinction that most people in the european union think the freedom of movement of people of europeans within europe is an enormous benefit. we were talking earlier about young people. i think we have a new generation in europe, which has been said, takes for granted so much of this. perhaps doesn't understand how far we have come. those of us who lives through, you know, immigration controls, capital controls, controls on employment going back to the '70s and '80s. how far we have come and what we have built. young people take that for granted and move seemlessly. it was interesting to note the generational difference in the voting pattern. again, i don't want for us to interpret how the uk people voted. it is interesting to note that the majority of young people tend to favor strongly remaining. the older generation tended to

favor leaving. i think, actually, the european union is already a success with young people and many, many young people in europe wish to maintain the possibility of freedom of movement. >> from an outside perspective and your response about populism, how well suited to engage with this question of populism? is this a responsibility that is something the member states have to take upon themselves? certainly the drivers, i think, between weather or not the migration, migration refugee crisis, there's policy preferences depending on what people's direct experiences are with each phenomenon. you know, how well suited, even where you have reforms in key european institutions like the parliament, how well suited is europe. when you look at what's

happening in france and germ any, what can they do to engage? >> can i just say quickly -- i'm sure my colleagues want to response. i agree with you. peter kmec said it well. brussels is held in as much esteem in europe and washington is in the united states. all toll picks is local. it is difficult for the people in brussels to get through to other parts of our national democracy. this is a common ownership of the european union. not just the institutions in brussels are the creiatures of what member states want to build. we, of course, are answerable and accountable for mistakes and the things we get wrong. for the national politicians to explain to citizens the benefits, some of the costs, perhaps of immigration and why this is ultimately in their best interest. i think we need, and that was

the point peter was saying, we need a renewed effort of communication about how this european union worked, what it delivered, what it does and what it does not do. what is it responsible for and what it is not responsible for and how we get this synergy between the two levels, doing things. when we get better outcomes by doing it together, we should do it together. when we don't need to do it together and we can leave member states to do it, they should continue to be 100% responsible for that. getting that message across is, in my view, the responsibility of the national politicians and you are right, the european institutions on their own are not going to be convincing in passing that message. >> again, i agree. you know, there is a basic principle of the european union, the goal in our slang which means that you should make it at

the level it's most effective to do it between europe and the national basis. so, as peter said, we have to focus the european union on the core business. what should we do at the european level? you know, we are not going to be able to the united states of europe. we are all countries, all nations. we have a very, very long history. very strong commitment of our citizens to our national identity and further more, let's face it, like in the u.s., we are a wave of nationalities. really, all our opinions, you know, maybe because they are afraid but back to the national roots. we have to find the right balance. let's do what is necessary to do at the national level and the

rest at the eu level. >> well, chris, you ask, how can an organizational structure that the eu has really counter the rise of populism? i think, this is the challenge that not only the eu has, but it's a common chael evening of the liberal democracies. it's a challenge of the west. i'm not sure it's a crisis of the west, but a rather dramatic challenge of the west, the rise of populism. and i think, there are two aspects to it. the economic social aspect and the identity politics of it. there are losers of globalization, we should not kid ourselves. it's not a win/win global

development. there are losers. we have to win back those losers and we have to, we have social tools, economic tools. some are better. we are better many aspects in europe than in the u.s. because we have a more elaborate sort of social system. we can retrain people when they lose their jobs in the rust belts. that we have, too, and our welfare state system looks potentially better after those people. but we also have, and that's much more difficult to address. the loss of identity. and that is something i think we have struggled with. how can we harmonize the idea of a common europe, which should be all our house, with the rooms that are in it that should be still regional and national. and there's no easy answer to that. but that is one of the biggest

challenges. >> great. well, this has been a fantastic conversation, and we are unfortunately about out of time. but i did want to give at least each of you the opportunity to maybe offer a silver lining perhaps in terms of your view as to what or whether this experience provides a silver lining or opportunities for europe. and if you could identify maybe one or two of what those potentially silver linings may be, we have a lot of students here. they're looking forward to the future. and i think particularly as lawyers, it's useful to look at potential opportunities, besides apparently jobs that brexit may be able to create. ambassador? >> well, i'm -- carl palmer said

optimism is a duty, and i always remain optimistic. but i have to say, i cannot see this brexit decision as anything other than rather regrettable and not likely to have many opportunities. we can certainly make the best of it. we can try to ensure that we -- it does the least damage. but i genuinely think it's a decision which is ultimately going to leave us all slightly poorer and slightly less well off than if the uk had stayed. i have to be honest about that. i think we will all work diligently with the british government to try to deal with this, both the exit and the building of a new relationship in the most constructive way possible. net result, i'm afraid, is probably a weaker uk and, frankly, a slightly diminished eu 27 as peter said. we're losing one of our largest member states. permanent seat in the security council. a nuclear weapons state.

a state with huge diplomatic experience and adding a lot to our collective value. it's very regrettable. i'm not questioning the right of the british people to decide what they've decided or putting into question that we now have to work with that. but to find the silver lining. the silver lining probably will be that we will have to figure out how to do this in the best way possible n and that will require creativity by all of us. this is not the best outcome for europe or for the transatlantic alliance. it will certainly complicate matters. and we will all work diligently to try to make the best we can out of what is for me, nonetheless, a second best outcome. >> on that happy note, ambassador. >> thanks very much. >> in spite of the brexit referendum and outcome, i think that the main challenge is to the confidence of the europeans. and including uk population and

especially this refers mainly to the young people who need to feel the whole project because it's -- to move the whole project forward. the second thing is actually that has been mentioned by peter, we are really being challenged by other forms of governments when it comes to liberal democracy. and this is the main challenge of the trans-atlantic. we have different items to form -- to liberal democracies, even the european union. so we need to explain the benefits and the contribution of the liberal democracy in the current modern world, and that also refers to the globalized developments. >> ambassador, to add maybe a little to this, any opportunities for consolidating opinions with one less chair

around the table? >> well, i think -- the uk has always been a very good scapegoat of the -- and actually, they enjoyed to be accused of blocking the consensus. so from time to time, they were the ones blocking it. but i don't think it will change. particularly the chemistry around the table, the european council. it's a sad day. we have the right, even for diplomats, to be emotional. actually, to try to be the european union without the uk really, frankly, sounds weird. the british are an integral part, an essential part of europe in every sense of the word. you know, really, they were our best enemies in history, and,

really, we want to keep them on board. but last point, as i've said, now the time is to respond to the concerns of our citizens. and the concerns of our citizens are about identity, it has been said. maybe i'm going to be controversial, but i think we have to decide what are the borders of europe? you know, europe has to end somewhere. we simply can't have a sort of open space. we need an identity. a common culture, a common civilization. we need to defend our citizens, as i've said, to defend our welfare state because something very difficult to understand from the u.s., but the welfare state is a part of our identity. european identity, and we have to defend our state which is not easy in a globalized world. so basically, the european

market shouldn't be a social jungle. the open market shouldn't be a tax jungle. we have to really defend, i think, we have to defend our values. we have also not to be naive. our single america is also, you know, really versus some countries out of the single m k market which are competing on an unfair basis with our economy. so a lot of things to do. and i think it will be our guess, i think my colleague would agree, that the citizen, our citizen, has to be more than ever, you know, really the center of our policy. >> no silver lining. i think we lost an ally. we lost a great free market economy. we lost a beacon of freedom and history. we lost a country that brought

all those virtues to the table, pragmatism, common sense. but if there are sort of -- if there's an up side after the brexit decision, it's two things. first, it's a shock that helps us to refocus. and, second, it was mentioned, it might help to mobilize the youth because they are the hope for a future europe. and they really are in favor, mostly, of all the assets of the european union. and i just hope that there will be more of a voice and more vociferous in europe after this shock. >> well, with this wonderful, wonderful conversation, let's give our guests an applause and thank you so much, ambassadors, for your time today. [ applause ]

as the nation elebltcts a n president in november, will they have the first foreign-born first lady since louisa adams or a first gentleman. learn about it from c-span's "first ladies." it gives readers a look into the personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. "first ladies" is a companion to c-span's biography series and features interviews with the

leading first ladiy ies histori. also biographies of 45 first presidential spouses. "first ladies" is now available at your favorite bookseller and also as an ebook. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your table or satellite provider. coming up on c-span3's american history tv, a focus on alexander hamilton. he'll hear from authors and historians. also "hamilton" the musical and its impact on popular culture.