he talks about the hard brexit that the government is going to take this country into. there is no suggestion of that whatsoever. no, that's because the right honorable gentleman seems to think that all these matters are binary decisions, either able to control immigration or have you some sort of decent trade arrangements, not going be the case. we're going to be ambitious for the united kingdom. that means a good trade deal as well as immigrations. >> mark harper. >> seems to me we're much more likely to achieve our firm policy objectives working together so i welcome the prime minister's moves to put russia's behavior on the council's gebd, a. she might have noticed a very robust statement by the new shadow secretary of state, condemning russia's behavior. when does she think the leader of the opposition will join this

being able to criticizes russia for indiscriminate taking place in syria and recognize its part in the syrian refugee crisis we're all trying to deal with? >> my right honorable friend makes a very valid and important point. i note that although the european council discussed the role russia was taken indiscriminate bombing in syria, the leader of the opposition failed to refer to russia in its actions in syria when it came. i hope he will not be too slow coming forward and making clear he does condemn russia's activities. otherwise people will assume that he doesn't. >> thank you, european investment bank vital funds for affordable housing, hospitals, investments in new technologies and utilities. we received $5.6 billion for projects up and down the country. has the prime minister had any discussions about our stake in the european investment bank

where we hold a sixth of the shares and will she confirm she will do nothing to put this at risk? >> the honorable lady makes an important point. i can inform her treasury in discussion with european investment break, recognize the role it plays, wanting to ensure nobody loses out as a result of decisions being taken by the british people. so those discussions are ongoing with european investment bank. >> thank you, mr. speaker. although a committed european, tony blair once said he faced the european summit with a sinking heart. can i say how pleased i am the prime minister enjoyed her first summit. but doesn't the experience with the -- causing a walkout by canadians so that brexit must not only be for england and wales but for the whole united

kingdom. >> he's absolutely right. the decision to leave the eu is a decision of the united kingdom. it will be the united kingdom that negotiates that deal and the right deal for united kingdom. >> businesses are already losing talent because of the uncertainty about the status of eu citizens here in the event of brexit. it's an uncertainty she could end now. why won't she? >> i expect to be able to guarantee the status of eu citizens here in the united kingdom. i intend and want to be able to do that. the only circumstances it won't be possible if british citizens in european union states was not guaranteed. this is an issue. as i said said previously, i would hope we would be able to discuss at an early stage. >> fernandez. >> as one who campaigned for

european union, i'm glad to see the commitment for the will of the people and forging a successful future for our country outside the eu. will my friend agree with starting position in the negotiations is a strong one and we are beginning to see positive revisions of growth, low unemployment and exports set to outpace imports proving the scare mongers who predicted dire recession absolutely wrong? >> well, i say to my honorable friend, of course she would receive some of the economic data that came out on the referendum more positive than predicted prior to the vote being taken. i won't pretend it's going to be plain sailing in the future. there will be ups and downs, negotiations as i've said. what's clear we maintain clear focus delivering what british people want, leaving european

union. >> in her words on migration, is the prime minister alluding to the uk and eu's interest and making president bashir, indicted by the international criminal court, a partner managing migration and counter-terrorism. she needs to be more explicit what she and her colleagues envisage and the process, a what it means for the horde of refugees from sudan and through sudan. >> what we are doing and what the european union is doing is looking initially at a small number of countries in africa to work with them on ensuring there's support available that can reduce the numbers of people who wish to move to europe. the cartoon process is an important process of the work being done. uk consistently said we need to operate upstream, about working with source countries, also about working with transit

countries and dealing with the organized crime groups who are dealing in this horrific crimes of people smuggling in human trafficking, leading to misery. we will look at the -- the european looking at dealing with a small number of countries and of course we recognize that there are those countries where there are reasons it is difficult to be able to return people to those countries, but it's important that we accept the principle and start to put into practice the process of working with people upstream. >> mr. speaker, it seems to be the case technically uk can't enter into trade deals with third party countries, a member of the eu. acknowledged we will start doing this at some point before we leave. sblg an issue my right honorable friend has looked at? is there some type of timetable here and was it mentioned at the summit? >> as far as the summit was

concerned, the point that i made was that any discussions we have with third countries in relation to trade deals are not in competition to what the european union is doing. we continue to press for european japan deal, we continue to press around european union table. i don't know if it's right, but there's a limit to what we can do in terms of entering into a trade arrangement before we left european union. that doesn't mean we can't scope our negotiations and have those discussions and indeed we are dealing with countries. >> thank you, prime minister. prime minister gave a revealing statement today when she said she won't be seeking to replicate parts of the european treaty. we know that's stalling over guarantees around labor, environmentable and consumer protection. so we know what she's ruling out. can she now tell us what she's ruling in. >> i have to say honorable lady,

nice try. i didn't say i was ruling out bits of the canadian deal. what i said was we quintana going to be replicating eu canada deal like we're not trying to replicate switzerland model. what we're trying to do ander a the united kingdom. >> i commend my right honorable friend the way she approached her first eu summit, 61 voted to leave european union and voted to leave the whole thing so get back control over our laws, our budget, our borders and our trade policy. there might be 500 members of this house who are remainers and actually acting on behalf of british people trying to get the best deal for this country. >> all i would say to my honorable friend is this, regardless of which side of the debate members of this house

were on prior to the 23rd of june, we should all accept the voice of the british people. >> congratulate prime minister on her handling of the eu summit. i won't exactly ask her if she enjoyed it, accept those who actually voted to leave, including millions of -- voted to leave. only believe we're really leaving when we invoke article 15. therefore, will she assure the house she won't be taken in by those that want to delay and delay and delay in the hopes that somehow, somewhere they will get another referendum. >> i've been very clear, there's no question of another referendum. also, while i felt it was right we took time to prepare through the invoking of article 50, it's also right, as the honorable lady says, members of the must be will want to see article 50

to they know it's going to happen. the timetable will invoke by the end of march 2017 is the right one. >> thank you, mr. speaker. people of somerset rejoicing in the prime minister's clarity and her approach to leaving european union. to encourage further rejoicing could she confirm my understanding that once we have left the european union, the european court of justice will have no jurisdiction of any kind whatsoever as the final arbiter of any law. >> when we leave the european union, uk laws will be determined in uk, british judges sitting in the uk who will be opining on the laws. it will be this house determining legislation that covers the british people. >> emma reynolds. >> mr. speaker, given that our european partners have not yet

committed to trade negotiations alongside negotiations on article 50, what assurances can she give british business in march 2019 when we leave the european union, they will not face rules and tariffs. >> we will be owhat we're looking to do is not negotiate exit from european union but new relationship with the european union. as i said to this house, it is very -- our ambition and intent we have in doing that is to ensure we get the best possible deal in trade with and operation within the european market. that is what the whole government is working on. >> mr. peter bone. >> we're seeing human trafficking gangs. one of the legacies of the previous prime minister and previous home secretary is we now lead the fight against human

trafficking. would the prime minister agree with me we have to build relationships not just with the european union but with all european countries if we're going to deal with this evil trade. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right in that. of course, he's taken a particular interest in the issue and done excellent work to encouraging activity that reduces and, indeed, stops human trafficking. he is right, there are countries like albania where it's important for us to be operating and, indeed, the government has been working with them to try to ensure we can reduce human trafficking. also important to work with nigeria, countries where young women are trafficked into sexual exploitationation here in the uk to work with them to reduce the opportunity for the criminal gangs to apply their horrific trade. >> further question for honorable member. the situation in libya is

becoming beyond a crisis. 150,000 have crossed mediterranean. 3,000 have died on their way. was there any discussion about sending the high representative, fredricka marg rinne, herself an italian, perhaps with our foreign secretary to try to work directly with the government to deal with human traffickers and also stop people from setting off in the first place. >> european high representative has been making a number of visits in north africa, for migration crisis we've seen in europe. the honorable gentleman is right, many people coming across libya into europe. i'm pleased it was the united kingdom instrumental getting security council resolution that enabled action to be taken off the libyan coast, of course, as well as rescuing thousands of people. sadly there are still those who

die in the mediterranean. as far as rescuing royal army has broken up boats used by criminal gangs. this an ongoing activity and we need to take every step we can to stop this terrible trade in human beings that leaves so much misery. >> constituency interchange of people and ideas with countries around the world. what action to assure students and academics, that the uk university circuit will remain open and inclusive. >> university is open for those sorts of exchanges and, of course, precisely what we've done for people outside the european union into the united kingdom. we've also given i hope some reinsurance to universities in relationship to arrangements we put in place on member states and prior to our leaving.

we've made clear funding arrangements put in place when they meet our requirements and value for money would be continued beyond the period which we leave. >> frank field. >> may i suggest to the prime minister, the country believes it is going to lead and leave this country out of europe and they certainly don't judge her when she's going to activate article 50, if they know what the hell article 50 means. in those circumstances, might i suggest, given as time goes on we realize the enormity of the task that she will only evoke article 50 if it is truly in the interest of this country by march next year. >> i think right honorable gentleman for the question he has put. i would simply say, as i did in response to his honorable friend earlier, i think for the british people, they do want to see action being taken to ensure we do leave the european union. i believe we're doing preparatory work and i haven't

set a specific date in the quarter of next year, the time invoking by the end of march next year is the right one. >> sir. >> i, too, rejoice my right honorable friends resolve that brexit means brexit is a clear message to the british people, but could also invite my right honorable friend to remind the country once it is necessary for us to discuss with a number of interested parties, not least devolved assemblies around the country, nonetheless in this matter she speaks for 17 million people, nicholas sturgeon speaks for 1.7 million. >> i think my honorable friend the important point is this, people voted to leave european yuna majority vote to leave the european union and the uk that

will negotiate the relationship we have with the eu in the future. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. the city of london is determined to remain in the single market and it once spoke of an arrangement to do so as far as financial services are concerned. it's understood the prime minister habit ruled this out. will she consider a similar arrangement for financial sector which is the second largest in uk and employs many thousands of my constituents. >> i say to the honorable lady as i have said before, actually people talk about being in the single market or members of the single market or access to the single market. what matters is the relationship we have with the your peeb union that enables maximum possible to trade with and operate within that single european market. we will be negotiating on behalf of financial sector across the whole of the united kingdom. >> being the european union compared to being in the back of

a crowded taxi headed in the wrong direction. does my friend agree with me in leaving the european union, if we remain in the single market, we'll no longer be tied up in the taxi, we'll be tied up in the boot. >> i think it's important as we look to get the right deal for the uk, we recognize what we're doing is negotiate agnew relationship with the uk for european union. that is ensuring our businesses are able to operate and trade and operate within the european market but also that we put into place the other things i believe are a requirement to the british people such as control of immigration pref doesn't the decision taken in the referendum deserve similar respect to the public yort in favor of the name boaty mcboat face that was taken. does she notice there's been a strong movement, public opinion, against brexit because people

realize the promises made by the brexiteers will not be honored and see the effects now on the welch economy. there's going to be an awful result in ireland to fixed hard borders that will not be enforceable. it will be hugely expensive. she's ignoring views and people of scotland. doesn't she think that's how little england myopia will lead to breakup. >> the uk voted to leave the european union. this government is putting that into practice. he can try -- he and others can try all they like to reverse that decision, to delay the implications, delay the application of that decision, to find ways to weeasel around. they chose, we now will do it.

>> india invests more in the uk than the rest of the eu combined and spent the last nine years trying to negotiate eu deal, what right does my honorable friend have to visit india to boost trade between the two countries, industry stating an agreement between us would be almost made in heaven. >> well, i think my honorable friend she's very perceptive. i'll be visiting india early november. i'm pleased to say i will be taking trade delegation with me but actually focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises to try to ensure we boost the relationships between smaller and medium sized businesses in the uk with the important indian market. >> russia's behavior in syria has already been utterly despicable but it was particularly worried to see

general kuznetsov and sailing through the english channel this weekend on its way to smash what is left of aleppo into smitheree smithereens. i'm happy strong relations with railroad but there's one thing this country could do as well, which americans have done as well, which is to say anybody involved in the murder or the corruption he unveiled is not welcome in this country. they will not come to this country. she's being advised now by others, and she'll end up going back to the old position, old cameron position. can i suggest to her this is something we could do and it would make a difference. >> an issue that the right honorable gentleman has campaigned long and hard on. he's asked this question of david cameron in the past when he was prime minister. he's asked the question of me as home secretary. he's asked the question i'm sure of previous foreign secretaries

on this matter. we have our own rules and regulations how we determine who is able to enter the uk. he talks about the opposition. it was a position of united kingdom government and remains a position of the united kingdom government. >> much to be said for repetition which is not novel for house of commons. >> the majority also congratulating the prime minister for her stance. won't you agree with me voters of eu countries will scrutinize their politicians and negotiate our exit and accordingly the next opportunity they have, if they perceive they do anything to endanger jobs and prosperity to maintain a flawed political fronlg? >> i think it's important, as i said earlier in response to another question, that the -- leaves the remaining 27 themselves what the nature of the eu going forward should be. i have also been clear with them that from the uk's point of

view, the vote is not an attempt to break up the whole of the european union. we have an interest seeing a strong european union. we have an interest working with that european union. the uk continuing to be a strong and dependable partner. but i do think the leaders inside the european union should consider the message that was given by the british people when they voted on the 23rd of june. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the head of the british bankers association and former adviser to the current foreign secretary, warned britain's biggest banks would relocate early, many of them, in early 2017. also some 70,000 jobs could be at risk. many of them are in my constituency. can the prime minister tell us how the government plans to ensure uk-based banking sector retains passport rights to retain freely anywhere else in the eu after britain leaves the european union? >> i've been clear on a number of responses i've given this

afternoon. the importance we place on being able not just to trade with but operate within the european market, and that is both goods and services. i say that precisely because i'm aware of the importance of financial services to the united kingdom as a whole, to our economy as a whole, obviously in particular constituencies in terms of individuals and their employment. there are other parts of our professional services, such as legal services, where the ability to operate within european union is an important part as well. we're in discussions with the financial sector on the issues that it believes are the priorities for the future so that we can ensure part of the negotiations we were able to get the best deal possible. >> would my friend agree in a free society there's never an obligation on anyone, certainly not members of parliament to change views because the majority voted otherwise but there is an obligation on all of us, including those who voted to remain, to work in the national interest and not to undermine it

by tying the hands of the prime minister and the government in a way that you would never do in commerce or private negotiations. >> my honorable friend, i speak with the voice of experience on this particular matter. that is precisely the point. if we're going to get the the best deal possible for united kingdom, it is important to enter into negotiations not having set out a series of red lines or not having set out in detail what our negotiating position is. we need to negotiate best possible deal for uk. tying the government's hands doing that would be the best way of getting the worst deal for the uk. >> thank you very much. prime minister, i welcome the fact you met leaders of the government this morning but uncertainty is what really is giving everyone doubt about brexit. particularly in northern ireland where we have one member that's for in and one that's for out. we don't know where we're going.

who do we have on the ground in europe making sure that we are gathering the intelligence and ready to fight the corner to make sure we do get the best interest of the whole of the uk together? >> well, it is important that we understand the possibilities of future relationship that we have with the european union. that's why i thought it was important in these negotiations which will be lengthy, and i recognize until we have the deal agreed, of course there will be an element of uncertainty. but that's why i set up a department, new government department to do the work, not just of understanding what is important for us here in the uk but also, of course, of understanding what is of importance for 27 member states of the european union. this isn't going to be a deal just about the uk, it's actually about a deal that works for both sides. >> mr. speaker on syria paragraph 20, line 5, talks about resumption of credible

political process. is that geneva one and geneva two off the peace process transition to democracy to ensure opposition get fair deal, go to talks and have to accept the dictate by russians because upper hand aggression killing civilians on the ground. >> my honorable friend knows we do want to see an ability to return talks that can lead to a proper political transition in syria. united kingdom i think has played an important role and will tib to play an important role supporting the opposition. it was a mart-of- matter 2011 or three weeks ago when foreign secretary hosted syrian opposition parties here in london at which they set out the future aims and future revision for syria. that was important for us to support them there and now we'll continue to do so. >> prime minister said she wanted the uk to be the most passionate, consistent and committed advocate of free trade anywhere in the world.

isn't that best demonstrated by the uk remaining a member of the single european market, that market of 9 trillion pounds which will protect jobs and incomes of my constituent in wakefield. does she agree with me the process, following the process set out by canada, seven years to negotiate a trade deal only to see it fall at the 11th hour because it was rejected by one of belgium's seven parlts is not something we should aspare to. >> the canadian deal or i would say to this house is that i understand while the talks -- discussions have stalled, there is still attempts being made that deal can go ahead and we would encourage that deal to go ahead. on the wider point that she makes, i'm sorry but i'm going to repeat what i have said previously, for people who put this purely in terms of some variation of access to or membership of single market, what matters is what the trading

relationship is. if we "american idol" behind our selves by saying it has to be in this particular format this stage, then it will not be open to us to negotiate the best possible deal. what matters is that we have the maximum possible to trade with and operate within the single european market and to do that across both goods and services and that's what we're aiming for. >> does the prime minister agree that when negotiating for brexit, it's important to negotiate not only collectively through the european states through council but equally, if not more important, to have conversations individually with each member state which has been shown by the experience negotiation over canadian trade deal. >> makes a very important point. that's precisely why both i and other ministers obviously are interacting with european union in its various forms the council

and so forth but also discussing a number of trips to meet various member states of the european union. we will continue those discussions with countries blat really because we want a good strong relationship bilaterally when we leave the european young as well as good relationship with eu. >> a report young people more internationalist in outlook and would overwhelmingly like to remain in eu. can i ask prime minister what discussion she had with counter-parts about protecting opportunities eu provides for young people in my constituency across scotland and throughout uk. >> of course, the negotiations haven't yet formally started with european union, but the sort of deal that we're talking about, the sort of deal we want to get, which will enhance prosperity and ensure jobs for the future will be as good for all generations in the uk. >> craig mckinley.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. can i ask my friend if european partners realized new uk eu trade arrangement will be good positive sum game for all concerned given that 22 of the 27 of them have a trade surplus with us. is she detecting common sense is finally starting to prevail. >> i'll say i think increasingly member states and eu are looking at this in relation not just what it means for uk by what it means for them as well. i have said consistently, this is not just about uk in some sense being supplicant but both sides. >> puts any country seeking to leave the eu a the a disadvantage, that is if you haven't got the deal you want in two years flip to trading with them putting your companies, your sectors at huge

disadvantage. with that in mind, we need to create a certain amount of good will from our european partners and making them think eu citizens living here are the cause of all our problems is not the way to build good will. can she therefore guarantee to us, and i accept she will want to find reform to the way immigration works but can she guarantee her cabinet, i see the home secretary sitting next to her, will exercise more care in the language they use on these matters? >> the government exercise every care when they use language in relation to these matters. to i have to say to the honorable gentleman the image he portrays is quite a wrong one. i've been very clear about our expectations and intentions in relation to eu citizens living in the united kingdom but he must accept as other members of the house recognize british in

eu states that's why i want to make sure the status of both is guaranteed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased my right honorable friend raised the matter of the crisis in syria at the european council. i'm wondering whether any spotlight was put on the crisis in yemen. there approaching 7,000 people have been killed. when 7,000 people were killed in july 1995, the international community moved into high gear to sort it out. can i ask my honorable friend whether european union has any plans to try to expedite appalling crisis, sort out the appalling crisis that is

happeni happening. >> right to call attention to the problems experienced by many people in yemen and what is happening in yemen. we want to see a political solution to yemen as we want to see a political solution in relation to syria. that's the only way to get long lasting peace and stability for the country. i'm pleased to say there has been at least temporary cessation of hostilities in yemen. i spoke over the weekend to crown prince of abu dhabi. one thing i raised in that conversation was the importance of trying to sustain that cessation of hostilities for all involved. >> mrs. helen good mabz. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister has had a lot of questions about the customs union, and that's because for exporters into the eu having to comply with the rules of origin from the outside would raise costs by 20%. the prime minister knows it's one of those exporters, has an

extremely important role in the northeast. now, when they left their meeting with her, they seemed quite a lot happier and satisfied with what the prime minister said. so could she share with the house what she said to them? >> in relation to the issue with the customs union, i'm sure the honorable lady knows, as i said in answer to earlier questions from one of her honorable friends, the customs union is a more complex issue than it at first seems when people describe it often in public. i'm very clear and we've been discussing with a number of companies about the intention of this government to ensure a competitive market and to ensure people are able to be here in the united kingdom prospering here in the united kingdom and adding to our economic growth. >> i thank the prime minister for her statement. can i say i entirely agree with

her that until we leave the european union, we should continue to play our full part in its affairs, not least because i expect eu will always pay our full contributions. does my right honorable friend k her fellow eu leaders understand that if we leave the european union and we have to fall back on wto, then according to today's report, eu exporters would be liable to pay 12.9 billion pounds a year more than twice the 5.2 billion pounds a year which uk exporters would be liable to pay. it is therefore very much in the interest of the rest of the eu to agree a tariff-free deal with our selves. >> my honorable friend makes a very important point and it is simply this. of course, this is not just about the united kingdom, it's

about the future impact of the economies on the member states of the european union. he's absolute sly right as we go into negotiation it will be for member states to recognize there are implications for them and those implications could be negative for their businesses and jobs in their countries of that's why it's in the interest of all of us to get the best possible deal in relying to trade. >> mr. speaker, the president of the european council recently issued a statement in which he said no soft brexit. there's either a hard brexit or no brexit at all. given that the prime minister was just in brussels, did she pick up this hardening political mood music, which makes absolutely clear that the idea of unfettered access to single market we so desperately need is rapidly becoming a pipe dream. >> i repeat what i said earlier we haven't yet started negotiations. what i found when i talked to other leaders and colleagues in

the european council at the end of last week was a recognition that, first of all, this is a complex matter we have to negotiate. secondly an increasing recognition that we have to ensure the deal we get is a positive deal, both european union and for the united kingdom. so i got the impression. what was being said to me shows we're able to sit down around that table and get the best possible deal for both sides. >> mr. david rutly. >> during your recent visit to berlin with members, it's clear there was genuine goodwill towards the united kingdom as well as understanding there's detailed negotiations ahead. there is and there are clear economic shared interests with member states. can my friend also confirm to the house common security concerns with russia as well as counter-terrorism issues that will help negotiators arriving at a positive outcome in their deliberations.

>> made an excellent point and much of the discussion tends to focus on the trade relationship we have. there many other areas we cooperate within the states within the european union and areas such as law enforcement, counter-terrorism and security, what we want to have a close and enduring partnership once we leave. >> steve. >> i'm sure continued european medical research cause brexit. without revealing her hand can she give assurance to protect for this fatal research. >> there was something behind the honorable gentleman's question the only way to access those networks is to be a member of the european union.

of course members of a number of research networks that operate as effectively but have nothing to do with the european union. in answer to his question, i can assure him it's another aspect of future implications we're aware of and will be taking into consideration. >> mr. speaker a dangerous crisis in the democratic republic of congo, which has seen 6 million people die in the past 20 years. there is a crisis in burundi with extra judicial killing happening every week and, in effect, a bloodbath in south sudan. all of these are of great interest to the united kingdom. were any of these subjects discussed at the summit? >> no, the subject on the summit's agenda were russian relation to syria, migration and trade. so the issue with the democratic republic of congo and south sudan weren't discussed. i can tell my honorable friends

i'm well aware he and others have about what is happening particularly recently in south sudan, a matter my right honorable friend the secretary is looking at closely. >> mr. peter. >> early stage elsewhere in the eu and citizens in the united kingdom. could you tell us concerns last week. and if not, why not? >> i've said on a number of occasions, including last week, that is an issue i would hope to be able to at reddress at an ea stage. i repeat once again, it is for this house not simply to ignore the interest of british citizens living in european union states. we must ensure their rights are

guaranteed as eu citizens living here rights will be guaranteed. >> mr. henry smith. >> mr. speaker, i very much commend my right honorable friends statement in the house. last friday held meeting with constituency for eu nationals concerned about the brexit vote and actually was heartened by a majority seeing the opportunities of the uk leaving eu possible for their home countries in the future. given effective wallonian agreement, what discussion because mr. amongst other leaders for the need. >> it's up to the 27 themselves to discuss among themselves the future shape they wish the european to take once the united

kingdom leaves. i have raised with leaders the importance of paying attention to the message given by uk vote to leave the european union, but i leave it to them to discuss the future of the eu without the uk. >> mr. speaker, the last week treasury committee heard from chancellor, heard offing sce scenari scenarios, and what the implications of what those options might be. today the perform confirmed she's also -- the government is looking at the regional impacts of those options. given the prime minister's apparent commitment having a series of debates on house of commons, she must surely agree that debate will be better informed if we have the evidence before us. now commitments publish those various options so this house and the public can have an informed debate about options ahead. >> prime minister. >> i can ensure honorable gentleman debates that take place in this house are as informed as possible.

a wide variety of work undertaken not just by government, implications of leaving european union, both sectors and different parts of the united kingdom. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my right honorable friend was absolutely right to stress that we are not leaving europe. indeed would she confirm when we leave the european union we'll continue to play a full and active part in the council of europe working together on the basis of friendship and not political union. >> yes, absolutely right. the uk will be continuing to play its role within the council of europe. i want us to continue to have a good relationship with the member states in the eu and with the eu it's self. i think that's in all our interests. >> mr. hanson. >> mr. conspiracy. did the prime minister find time in her busy weekend to emphasize to european colleagues how much we value things such as the transfer agreement, things such

as european arrest warrant and will she agree whatever negotiating she does, nothing will lead to the watering down of those commitments? >> know my commitment to the relationship that we have with other member states of the european union in relation to justice and home affairs matters, but i'm interested i've had a lot of questions about the detail of the discussions i had on brexit, the european council. of course, the main p toics that we discussed at the european council were russia, migration and trade, discussions on the detail of the negotiations will be for the future. >> the people voted more than any other to leave the european union and no constituency approves more of the prime minister's approach. will she now agree with me what they deserve is the speedy triggering of article 50, speedy trade negotiations, a speedy approach to taking back control over negotiation and speedy

rollout for migration fund. >> i note that what my friend slipped in there at the end of his question. what i would say to him is i think it is absolutely right. as i said in response to opposition earlier, i think it's important that people see we are committed to invoking article 50 because there are those, i fear, who wish to delay the implication of article 50 as a proxy for not leaving european union. it's important we do give people certainty and that's why i set out we will invoke article 50 by the end of march next year. >> thank you, mr. speaker. prime minister said at the topic, eu council as topic of future chief of staff in relation seems to know the hand very well and has declared, he says, we do not have to accept dumping by chinese steel industry and could impose

retaliatory tariffs, the u.s. government policy to stop these measures. the government hasn't got the hands tied behind their back but tying the hands of british steelworkers as we speak. >> no. the government has in a number of ways been supporting steel in the united kingdom as the honorable knows in relationships to compensation, climate change and renewables and also ability to take social issues into concern when deciding about procurement of steel, whole range of measures taken. in relation to actions taken by european union, we decided we will modernize trade defense instruments but we would do that in a balanced way balancing interest of users and consumers. of course, as i'm sure he'll know the application of lesser duty relief has actually meant certain parts of the steel industry, imports from china have dropped by 90%.

>> mr. patrick grady. >> of all the european laws and regulations she wants to democratically incorporate, which one does she want to abolish or amend first? >> prime minister? >> it will be for this parliament to decide on how we deal with regulations and laws once they have been brought into uk law. there are two points i would make to the honorable gentleman. it's right to bring that eu law into uk law at the point we leave european union to ensure there's no legal gap and everybody has certainty of the legislation they will be operating under. the second important point is that once that has happened, it will be for this parliament to decide and to be sovereign in determining those laws. >> thank you, mr. speaker. could the prime minister

enlighten us on whether her discussions touch on the subject of higher education and any claims whether uk universities will retain access to eu research projects after we leave and also the fee status of eu students in 2018 and beyond. because on the first we've already heard anecdotal evidence british researchers have been turned down for horizon 2020 fun. on both of them my written questions for the government remain unanswered. >> prime minister. >> we'll, of course, get responses to her written questions in due course. what i will say there is a concern that has been raised with me by a number of people that there is an approach being taken, particularly in relation to university sector as we decided to leave, we should be treated somewhat differently while we're still in the european union. what is important is that we emphasize and ensure while we're still members of the eu, we're still treated as full members of the eu and have access to projects the honorable lady is

talking about. >> martin hughes. >> mr. speaker, you saved the best for last. recently, mr. speaker, the secr general calls at this time european union an essential partner for nato and further states that nato has had every opportunity to strengthen their unity and practical cooperation even further. therefore, how can they newly confirm the brexit prime minister reject the security even close to military union with the european union as accepted by our nato allies? >> i thank you for the secretary general of nato was talking about nato operating with an defense arrangements in the european union. it wasn't about the uk being a part of some stronger defense within the european union. we will continue to play a leading role as we have done over the years.

we will continue to have a closer relationship with the european union and it will be in all our interests to insure we are working together for the correctsive defense of member states and protective defense of europe. >> i'd like to talk about the assurances to mosul coming off the negotiation of 2.2 million in our economy. >> i have and i will repeat it yet again as the honorable gentleman didn't appear to hear the answer when it was given previously. i expect to be able to. i intend to be able to and i want to guarantee the states living here in the eu and united kingdom, but in the only circumstances that wouldn't be possible including even scotland, who are living in the european union not guaranteed in return. it's very, it's a very simple position. we cannot abandon british sids.

>> order. >> prime time here on c-span 3 american history highlights until congress returns back to the november elections. tonight, american artifact, beginning at 8:00 eastern, a visit to the flight 93 visitors center. then freedom of information artifacts, 50 years after the law was enacted. also visits to the battleship wisconsin, pierce mill and the heart building on capitol hill. american history pd prime time tonight starting at 8:00 eastern. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3 saturday morning, from 9:00 eastern until just afternoon. >> this is the british empire and its commonwealth lasts for a thousand years. men will still say. >> we are live for the 33rd

international churchill conference in washington, d.c., focusing on the former british prime minister and friend the contemporary. speakers include british historian an true robert, author of "masters and commanders," how four titans won the wore in the u.s., 1441 to 1945 and later on saturday at 7:00, texas general land office commissioner george p. bush, state senator jose menendez and musician phil collins talk about the alamo at austin. >> the memories i have fresh at that time was this group of people were going and they knew they were going to die, but they went or they were there but there was something very noble, very romantic. i think that's one of the things i think would be good in this

that we put it in context. >> saturday evening at 6:00. on american art facts. >> notice he is not wearing a weapon. he would often lead an attack carrying nothing but that riding crop you see in his right hand t. men looked at this and realized, hey, if the colonel, late ter brigadier, well, if the colonel can take it, i can take it, too. >> we visit norfolk, virginia to learn about the early life of douglas macarthur who commanded allied forces in the pacific during world war ii. >> they service conscience with the highest level of integrity, but with their moral compass locked so we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. >> they explain the ten commandments for presidential leadership. what they are and provides

examples of presidents that excel at each one. for our complete history schedule go to cspan.org. . reporters, analysts and commentators now on the 2015 presidential race. georgetown university law center here in washington, d.c. hosted the discussion about polls, the campaign plaftform and the styls of the two major party candidates. this is about an hour. >> good evening, everybody. thank you all so much for being here tonight. we are honored by the presence of our panel here. they are a terrific group of people. rhea very fortunate, all of us, to have them here at georgetown law school. before i introduce dean trainer and we get the evening really going, i did want to take a second to thank the student ambassadors who did all the work on this and got in touch with the whole panel and did all the

legwork. thank you to all of you guys. we appreciate it. [ applause ] >> put eight different way, this ain't happening without them. so thank you all very, very much, a special thanks, to my assistant she na callahan, without whom this doesn't happen. so thank you, shannon. when i travel around the country as a missions guy and talk about the advantage of coming to georgedown law school, there are many, many i talk about and something like this is right at the top of the list. this is a wonderful washington event and if you can tune out all the noise about how everybody doesn't like washington. i can tell you, plenty of law school applicants love washington. they love to be here and everybody runs for congress. i think they all know it's in washington. so how could they not like being in washington. we are honored to have everybody here. thank you all very, very much. it's my pleasure to introduce the dean of georgetown law

school, bill trainer. [ applause ] >> thanks, very much, andy, and thank you, ambassador. thank you to shannon. i, particularly my role is to thank andy. and i we all know is the best dean of admissions in the country. all our students can recognize that. in addition to being a fabulous dean of admission, he also puts together a big program. thank you very much, a big round of applause for randy. [ applause ] >> and you know i think when i talk about the law school, one of the points that i always make is where else would you want to go to law school except in washington, d.c.? it just gives you the kind of insights you can't get anywhere else and i can't think of a better example than the panel of what we will hear. this election has endured the whole country in a way i haven't seen in this lifetime. to have this panel talk about

what will happen, why it's going to happen, what an amazing vent. to our panelists, thank you very much. you will be introducing to sam clay. my other piece of responsibility is to introduce sam. sam is, of course, a big deal in journalism, a cnn senior vice president. he's our washington bureau chief. he's a three-time emmy award winner. what's most important is he's a georgeton law graduate class of 1999. [ applause ] so without further adieu, let me turn matters over to sam. >> i will focus here. so for the record, we are 14 day, three hours, 55 minutes in california. i'm not counting and assuming that we know the answer then, it will cap off the most divisive, complicated, extraordinary campaign we can see in modern

company history. so who better to talk about it the outstanding opinion el. i will introduce them, first is a republican strategist who worked in the white house for the second derm term of george w. bush. he worked as associate director of coalition, he is currently a cnn commentator and a supporter of donald trump. we have dj leone, author of a whole host of books on politics, a senior fellow of the brookeings institution and a regular at the university. >> 50i78 a regular university professor. very proud of my georgetown connection. [ applause ] >> so linda lake is a long-time democratic strategist. she has worked with dozens of other candidates for office for progressist organizations such as the bureau of labor and not

surprising a supporter of hillary clinton. beside her is retired joseph kellogg, a foreign adviser to the donald trump campaign. he spent 35 years in the u.s. army serving in vietnam and operation desert storm. he commanded the 82nd airborne division and his awards include the silver star and several bronze stars and to his celeste peter hart, democratic pollster who is not surprisingly the founder of hart research and is the brains you would say i agree behind nbc-"wall street journal" poll and karen mcnullity the national correspondent for the post. before the post, she was a long-time political correspondent for "time" magazine and before that for the los angeles times. she is our straight down the midled voice of reason or the panel. thank you all for joining this, doing this today. i want to start with the state of the race. i will start with peter, give us a sense of where the race stand at this moment and the prospects for donald trump catching up.

>> okay. in our latest nbc-"wall street journal" poll, i get paid every time i mention them, we had the races at a ten-point race, 47-37. and there are more recent polls. you were mentioning cnn had a poll about five points tonight. you saw the washington post by i believe was 12 points, somewhere between those numbers is probably where the state of the race is, which is the democrat hillary clinton has a decisive lead and she has a decisive lead, in part, because of the democratic coalition. she's doing exceptionally well with hispanics and african-americans, doing well with women, big league, and also with millennials him all of those things are good t. reason

the race is not totally put away is because we don't know exactly who is going to vote. those people who are most in question happen to be those who tend to be much more part of the clinton coalition. that's the challenge. and what i would add to all of this is that if you look, this race has not changed in the course of one year. we think of things as moving tremendously, but we had a question which we have been asking since 1996 and that is, describe your feelings about each of these people as potential hosts, are you satisfied and hopeful that they do a food job? are you certain of wondering whether they do a good job. you are pessimistic and worried and are you ap tunistic and confident? if you look at it, if you take it one year ago in october of 2015, just when we were starting

out, essentially, what you had is about 43% of the american public saying they were optimistic or satisfied with hillary clinton and at that state of the game, it was about 56% who were pessimistic, or wondering. you come one year later, with everything that's happened, all the ups and downs, the answer is it's now 43-56, exactly the same. you say, well, donald trump has just been a roller coaster. well, the answer is, in october '15, 32% were either optimistic or satisfied and 67% were not. today one year later, it's 34 and 65. so for all the things that we're looking at and everything that we think has happened, in reality, so much has happened, but so few attitudes have changed. >> so hillary clinton has the lead over donald trump. it's not huge, but it's a lead,

whether it's 5 or in that vicinity and the nbc-"wall street journal" had it higher up. >> first of all i like your poll the cnn is the best poll we go with right now with five. but i will say this, what mr. trump needs to do is continue to get the message to the american people. the one thing that people forget is that his experience at being a business leader and his experience on "the apprentice" his experience in the public sector has given him the unique ability to really tap into the mindset of the american people. this is why he was so underestimated during the primary because everyone thought that no one would take him seriously. so he stood there at the debate stage and he beat out all 15, 16, however many there was and those that were there against him. now we are seeing the clinton campaign in my opinion is ratcheting up their attacks on him on a negative base. if you watched those last two debates, there was more stuff than policy in my opinion.

what you saw her reenforcing this narrative that donald trump is a sexist, a biggist, a racist, because i believe she knows that the independents, there's moderates and the bernie sander's coalition that will not vote for someone who may perceive to be a racist or a miss only nist, et cetera, but they will vote for someone who speaks directly, mean what is he says and what he means, which is not what secretary clinton does, because that's why her negatives are so high, fundamentally, people do not trust her. mr. trump specifically needs to do is stay on message, which sometimes he gets on these, you know, goose chases around other things, but he needs the stay on message and talk about his strengths. his strengths are jobs, the economy, nafta, trade the business leader that he is. if he stays on message direct to the american people, he will win this election. i don't think it will be a blowout on either side. i think it will be very close. i think mr. trump has what you

take to deliver. if you look at the battle grounsd, the fact that he is doing good in ohio are tightening in florida are good indicators he has what it takes to win in the next 14 days. >> [ inaudible ] i want to mention about half an hour before we do that, is to ask questions, take questions and then we'll have more on this side of the row in about 45 minutes, a few minutes later. dj, karen, just giving your take on the likelihood of donald trump picking up what he has to do. do you think this administration is over? >> just three quick things i want to say. one is to salute andy coinblat, where is he? andy and i work together a lot, helping set up the george -- politics. everybody here should get involved in the institute of politics at some point. i think you will be very happy. secondly, general kellogg, thank you for your service to our

country. thirdly, i love that peter mentioned bigley, i never disagreed with the new york times. than the one this morning where they are trying to take away from donald trump and i am no trump fan, as you know, his role as a language innovator. they claim that he is saying big league and not bigley. i insist that he has been saying bigley and the other day he used biggerly. so let's give him credit for that. >> and you are right on both. bigly, biggerly. >> [ inaudible ] . >> right. bigley is awesome. my bake view of the election is when it's between now and election day, we repeal both women suffer raj and the remaining parts of the voting rights act, donald trump loose. and i think it's possible that he will lose by a significant margin. you know, we don't know what's going to happen in the next two weeks. we don't know what new e-mails will come our way from various

sources. you know, sol things have happened. but i think that trump is caught in what you might call a narrative of defeat that happens to candidates at the end of a campaign. it's bipartisan, the narrative of defeat, when you show up and the reporters ask you, you are down by seven points in ohio or florida or wherever it is, how are you going to catch up? i think he's going to have trouble sort of turning that around. two interesting things from that abc poll, which did, in fairness to our trump colleagues to coin particularly bigley biggerly, the two interesting things inside there, one is the percentage of republicans who are likely voters was down by 7 points, that should be very alarming to the trump campaign and i was trying to find the exact number. if you looked at where republicans and democrats are, clinton was ahead among

democrats by somewhere around 85 points. trump was ahead among republicans by somewhere around 75 points. that's a decay in the kind of support he needs, which means that i think we will get to this later. if you asked me about control of the senate two weeks ago, i would have said it's about 50-50. i think it's gone to sort of 65-35 as a guess of the democrat's favor. the house will probably say republican. but we are going to watch an interesting range of possibilities what we're guessing at. >> [ inaudible ] you are the voice of reason on the panel as we said at the beginning. i love your take on the race, but also you have covered a number of campaigns. can you imagine that this year. you can do it up in the races now. >> well, first of all, i think if i'm having to be the voice of reason here, i should totally

swear off any predictions of this race, given everything that we have seen. i think the race is not over. it is close to over and i think we had the october surprise that is going to probably be remembered as the point of no return in this race, which was a few fridays ago when my colleague called the washington post revealed the existence of an unknown until then but known now by everyone audio tape of donald trump talking to billy bush, the host of ""access hollywood"" and saying a lot of things about women, braging about his behaviors to women. and there's really been nothing i think since then that has affected the race quite -- you can look at, for instance, hillary clinton white women are coming back to hillary clinton. a lot of the numbers shifting i think and correct me here, but

can be traced to the release of that tape. so we've had the october surprise and the question is whether there's a november surprise. >> we also had -- we've had another october surprise, which interesting to the media, refuses to talk about it is the fact of all the things that happen on wikileaks. known e i don't know if you want to talk about it or cover it. >> that is damming information that is a treasure trove of things that reenforce the narrative that hillary clinton can't be triumphed. they were coordinating with the state department. you go down the line. but we refuse to talk about it from a media standpoint, so yes, that is also an october surprise. again sex sells, that's what people want to hear. until we are honest about the state of this race and getting back to things that actually matter which is the things that secretary -- we can talk about what dominican republic said 12 years ago or what secretary clinton did as secretary of state a few years ago and today.

>> [ inaudible ] >> well, i think a couple of things, first of all, donald trump failed two basic threshold questions with a big portion of the voters. the first is that he does not have the temperament to be president and that's being reenforced in a lot of the ads. you have now two-thirds of americans that say he does not have the temperament to be president. >> that comes not from anything that anyone has accused him of. it's come from his own behavior and his own words. so whether it's mocking a disabled reporter in a way that, i mean -- he would be in the principal's office in two seconds, every single one of us would have taken our kids down there and said this is not how you behave. his language about women and his behavior toward women, which is completely unacceptable and the number of women coming forward and his behavior towards immigrants and people of color. he reiterates it.

i mean, hillary clinton is a respected secretary of state and u.s. senator. you don't turn in this world and say under your breath not very much, nasty women. women are sick of it. we're not taking it anymore. and so i think that his own behavior has disqualified him. whether it's being sexist, racist and against disabled people or whether the temperament to be president. up with of the things i think is really interested is the valid dater ads on tv right now that are two-thirds of the ads that are running against donald trump right now. frankly the two most powerful ones are a gentleman who had his, who was in control of the nuclear code who said, you know, i was the one at the other end of the red phone and i prayed that call never came. i do thank you, general, for your service in keeping all of us safe so we can be safe in our prayers. and that is a very powerful ad,

that's the most powerful ad in this cycle and the mom of a disabled child that said, you know, this is not how we treat people. this is not how we respect people. >> let's talk about wikileaks. what you asked about? >> you had worked for the president since the '50s. talk a little bit about from the -- [ inaudible ] also as a u.s. military about donald trump's temperament and address that concern that is out there that the hillary clinton campaign is obviously pushing that these e he's not the right person for commander-in-chief. >> thanks. first of all, how about recently on cnn, i don't know if you saw this, a pretty good interview the president asked about uk voting to stay in the european union. you know, i don't think you need to count anybody out in any election. i think it's foolish to think that. because you just never know and it could be embarrassing to somebody if they said it's really over and it's not. i wouldn't go there at all.

part of the reason i say that, i was with mr. trump in grand junction, colorado, just the other day. this is the first time i have done it. i don't know how crowds work. i don't know crowds meaning the size of a movie we are told. we were coming into colorado springs, there were 3,000 people at the airport at grand junction. there were 4,000 in the hangar, 4,000 outside, 2,000 on the side lines and the traffic degree was six miles long. somebody will tell me, with crowd like that. they were old, half were women. they were disabled. and i saw that earlier in colorado springs. i saw it in madison, green bay, wisconsin, so i don't know what crowds mean. i don't know if that's entruciasm or what it is, but what i have seen is america out there and i am very, very confident in what they have done and what's going on. when you talk about temperament, i wouldn't be with mr. trump if i didn't think he had the temperament to be president of the united states look, i have skin in the game. a lot of people down have skin

in the game. what i mean by that my son if law has upon the four tours. he will teach at west point. my young it'sest son has been told he's heading to afghanistan. my daughter spent a year-and-a-half in afghanistan i got friends, i got relatives that are serving in the military and going forth and doing work of this nation going forward. if i didn't believe that he was the right guy, i wouldn't be with him. i wouldn't put my son at that, in that level. we have 200 former flag admirals with him, including two former delta commanders, four star commanders, people who have served on the joint chiefs senior demanders in combat. we have 23 medal of honor recipients. i would say, you talk about temperament. you got that many people saying, hey, we're with you. you are okay. there's got to be something there. i think you need to sit back and think about it. this is the first time i have ever been involved in a

political campaign. never seen it before. by the way, it will probably be the last for sure. enough is enough. but i trust the man and i believe the man. i have been with him long enough to know, sitting in close quarters, the type of individual he is. my daughter said, dad, you know what you ought to do, call story called behind closed doors and explain what he's really like when he's behind this and talking to you. well, i have a five page nba, i don't want to go there. but i look at him, i see what he talks about, how he talks. he asks hard questions. he asks what i call edge questions. an edge question is when you are asked the question, do you really want to answer it because it's so hard? they were questions, for example, he'd say, do we need a nuclear triad, you go, yeah, he goes, don't we have to modernize it at $45 billion a 84. yeah. where are you going to get the money from in you think down those habit holes that are hard t. former secretary of defense said we don't, i think we do. so i look at his temperament,

his decision-making, the way the person s. i'm not talking about the visual person you see on tv and everywhere else, i'm liking behind closed doors and how he talks. the second one is, i like this comment, it was told to me by somebody else. family matters, family matters. look at his family, a pretty good family. pretty good people. i don't like getting involved in rhetoric. what he said to whom and what's going only. i think the last debate was the best because the first two debates started off with personality questions, the first question asked today was on the supreme court. that's what you all should be concerned about. i think that was a great start of the debate. that's why we need to go. i think if the people talk about personalities get to the state. i think this nation has too many issues out there that have to be solved. let's lay it out. sit back. when i was asked on a tv show, what should you do? i would ask every american who votes, just take a minute before

they go into the voting booth, and sit back and reflect on this nation. not on personalities. but on what, where this nation is going to do, do we want a status quo election or changed election? and how do you want it to go and then vote. >> no, i didn't, particularly on that, but why don't you go on? i'll be happy to answer later on. >> okay. excellent [ inaudible ] as you mentioned at the beginning as some suggest, because the political establishment in the united kingdom, many of the polls i would say were sure the united kingdom will stay and that hasn't happened and there are an awful lot of parallels some say about leaving the european union and the trump phenomena. so peter can you imagine that

the, at least in this town that the pollsters that the establishment may just be wrong on this one? >> pollsters wrong? i couldn't accept that idea. there's pollsters and below that, there are lawyers and journalis journalist journalists. >> at the polls, they'll tell you that. >> exactly. let me just say that ied a gotten the brexit question at every forum that i had gone to. it's a fair question. it's an important question. it really goes to the question of turnout t. difference between brexit and the presidential election is one was what i call a referendum. a referendum on ideas and

essentially it has no structure. and so people who turn out or chose to turn out or however the post on it, it obvious was a turnout question. what i'm telling you is when you have party identification, we have a set, a group of ideas, but we're able to play off of with a lot of history. given all of that, i don't see it, i don't think that it's there. i guarantee you that there will be one poll that will show donald trump winning or multiple polls. but if you look at the vast number of things, i would pick up from where karen started. >> that is we will have to see a awful lot of change in 14 days to be able to see the difference and the major thing that i would say is the question of turnout and at this stage of the game, both in early voting and what we see in our polls, it would suggest that the turnout is going to be strong on the democratic side. >> our polls taken earlier,

rasmussen poll has donald trump ahead right now that has something clinton has, [ inaudible ] they have methodology of those polls. we don't see them on cnn. but they're out there. >> can i say on brexit, there are a couple things about that, it's a bit to say that brexit was way, you know the polls all showed brexit was going to lose. i'm quoting from a bloomberg news report that morning and it says three or four surveys published wednesday depicked a contest too close to call with two points or less separating the camp, so polls showed a clear lead for remain. so brexit, we didn't have in brexit the kind of polling we have at the moment. now again, we don't know what's going to happen between now and election day. if the polls stay at all like they are now, it's hard to see trump winning. secondly, take a look at that map behind us, if you give trump

all of those yellow states that are uncertain, then take florida and nevada away from clinton, florida the biggest state, she still has an electoral vote majority. so she's sitting there in a very clear place. the general and i have disagreements on a lot of issues. i think when he said personalities, i don't think that's the point. i think she was right when she talked about threshold questions that trump, look at that last debate. trump did reasonably well at least passively for the first half hour when it was all about issues, where he broke down was on these questions of suitedability, temperament. is he qualified to be president? that question usually yields about 65% around there saying no those are very hard numbers for a candidate to overcome, which is why you have so many republicans out there who have a

very -- who were on the ballot with him having a hellish time dealing with him, kelly ayotte in new hampshire, a good example where on the same day she said he was a role model, a few hours later she said he wasn't. joe heck in nevada, a lot of republicans don't know where to be with trump. if they had more confidence open these core questions, i don't think he'd be having those problems and they wouldn't be having them. >> i want to say on brexit, i think the more interesting question then whether the polls are accurate about brexit or not is what produced brexit produced trump, too. and i think what produced brexit and trump to a certain extent produced bernie sanders and what produced all three of them is producing anti-immigrant move ps all over europe and the united statesened i think it raises a far more fundamental question of proposed elections, whoever is in charge about what that challenge is and to me i think there are at least three major

factors we need to grapple with as a country that are very, very important to the future of our country. i think your audience of millennials are really leaders on these questions. one is, we have had -- if are you a 50-year-old white worker in the united states, white blue cal lor worker, you have worked your entire life and never seen a race in real dollars. now, something is fundamentally wrong. >> that same white worker, white blue collar worker, 85% of your kids you think will be worse off than you are. you worked your brains out, you didn't get a raise and your kids don't have a chance. >> the core of the trump movement that there is an entire group of americans who feel that that production has forgottenb about brexit. they may have been in birmingham voted for brexit. what about those voters have we in washington and the media and certainly the political establishment missed? because i don't think in the last few elections we spent a lot of time talking about

working class voters, white working class men, for example. >> well, four years ago, when the republican party and mitt romney were convinced he was going to win and they were surprised when he didn't, the republicans set out on this big project to remake themselves. it became how do we reach out to women? how do we reach out to young people? the assumption in walk was that the immigration overhaul was a foregone conclusion, because that was how the party was going to, the only way it could survive. let me tell you, six days after the 2012 election, when this was, this wisdom was setting in as to how the parties were going to have to go, a gentleman on fifth avenue in new york wrote a $300 check to the patent and trademark office in washington and sent in an application to

trademark the phrase "make america great again. kwpts and donald trump six days after the 20 twelve election and i've got all this stuff saved on my -- totally. i got it saved on my desktop, because you can watch, it's all you can find it on the internet, his two years of fighting. he had the blocked lettering sketched out, everything. >> can you bring up a big point for me. >> thank you. >> no, it's a good -- >> [ inaudible ] >> really, good idea. but it's, i think what you simply put it very simply in what his view is. it's to me it's come down to something very, very simple. the election is at status quo or change. it's that simple. if you like what's happened the last four, eight, 12, 16, right now i'm going back to

republicans as well, and your cap is very clear, in the end you vote for hillary clinton. if you are tired of what's happening out there, you see the change around the possibility of change, then you vote for donald trump. both of them have flaws. both of them sometimes have some issues that you may be concerned about. but that's what it really comes down to. when you look at the earns that have gone out there. you go to allegheny county in pennsylvania, track that one on election night. you know, when president obama won, he won allegheny county by 100,000 votes. that's pittsburgh. you go out there. you start looking at signs out there, who is behind, who is on trump signs. go out into your neighborhoods, have you noticed that the signs this year are not as prevalent as you have seen in past elections. i live in the i'd like to say the people's republic of arlington, virginia. and you look out there. coming over here tonight, all right, coming toward 395 and over here, you know how many

hillary clinton signs i saw on the medians? i can tell you how many other signs? you know how many i saw in none. in arlington county, i walk my dog around, you see three signs. you don't see trump signs. but i think the people are frustrated with what's going on out there. they try to find a way to change. that's the reason i said, i've got this thing about people. i got this thing about person amendments. i got all of that. but i think there is a trussstration of the american people. that's why i got involved, that they're saying, when are we really going to see a change? when are we really going osee this? we hear about it, every two years, every four years, we will change, change, change. nothing ever happens at all. >> could i put -- i just want to mention, prii and brookings have a poll coming out tomorrow, we asked a question about -- what? i want to cite one question that august about one question where the question is asked do you

think america was better off 50 years ago or is better off now? it splits the countries down the middle and what you have are african-americans and latinos say we are better off now for obvious reasons given by the progress that's been made, upscale americans, college educated americans say we are better off now. non-college educated americans say we are worse off now t. title on the pom is america 2050 or 1950? and they i think the blue collar component comes in two parts. some of it is the economic mess that allot of non-college folks have been in for a long time and i think personally, if hillary clinton wins, i think she should spend three months between election day and january traveling to ap latchia and the small mill towns in the country where she will get clobbered and

talk about the fact that the grievances people have in those places are absolutely legitimate. but the other side of it is a reaction on race, on religion, a real sense that the country is not the same country people grew up in. the largest group for those who say we're worse off now, we're evangelical christians. i think with the trump phenomenon, you got to be candid in talking about an element that is very constevetive or right wing or whatever word you want to use on race and immigration. and other piece overlapping, you can't completely separate these things are people who have some real economic grievances given what's happened to them as described so well. >> that is the second is a huge problem for the country. it doesn't matter if you are a democrat or a republican, we have to do something about it t. divisions, the cull schurl divisions are something together we have to find a which to do something about. >> you have been there to help

walk through a path of victory and this map you see here, it changes every two days. so don't take this with the yellow states for the true battleground states the light blue states. the states that are leaning towards clinton. the currents states leaning towards trump, but the light blue, light red. [ inaudible ] so i want to start by mentioning all of the yellow states red, so we're going to go ahead give donald trump the yellow states and then paris give me your path to donald trump becoming the president of the united states, because we had some very lofty conversations and talked about group itself of people, talked about change. all of these in your report, but at the end of the day, these contests only work if you can convince voters if certain

remaining states that donald trump is the guy. >> i'm a gop commenttator, not a pollsters. i work the call row. that's what he did. that's not what i do. i will tell you, if you get florida. >> florida. >> you give him florida. >> okay. >> see this is a red election. you see just what happened? come on. i would expect more out of -- is it me? i would expect more from georgetown. i was at pep perdine, with hanging chads. so florida, i look at pennsylvania, the subtraction there. >> you got it. there is the victory. >> you see, it opens this race. >> i'm going to virginia. again, virginia. there you go. i'm going to vote in virginia. there you go. this is a point that speaks to this.

>> that is, i believe there is a growing group of individual, look, you talk about those 50, white people over 50 that don't have -- haven't had a raise. i don't know what polls you look at or who you talk to, but if times are hard for middle class white people, it's really hard for black people. >> yes. >> and i know that because i happen to be black and i'm republican, so people try to pull my black card all the time. but i tell you based on my own family and my own friends and people i speak to an a regular basis in the community, there is a growing sense that they are, we, the black community, are left behind in this economy. if you have 8.4% if you believe that number of unemployment in the plaque community. if you have more black people owning homes than in the great depression than we do now, we have a severe problem. there are a lot of black people who look at mr. trump and say, i will not say this publicly, but in terms of making america great again, which bill clinton, president clinton said throughout the times in multiple years in the past, there is a

real sense america can be great again. my grandfather worked for sears and row buck for 30 years and retired and opened his own air condition refrigeration business. when he did 3040 years ago was able to buy all of his children a car, give them a downpayment for their ohio when i went to pepperdine for under grad, my mother was not able to do any of that for me. my mother, i actually i always made more money than my mother want and so when you look at the economy, when you look at the economy, you look at jobs and you look at the plight of black american in certain urban centers, like detroit, like chicago, like baltimore, these are real issues. so they may not come out and say i'm for donald trump, but when they go and vote, they will think to themselves, what has secretary clinton who is from chicago done for me lately while she was secretary of state, while she was first lady, while ago she was the united states senator, what has she specifically done and i believe there is a growing contention of african americans, of mill lenleia the student loan debt

has not improved under this administration. it's not going to improve if you look at what she is proposing. more people will go an vote for him. so this map is not including the them. >> the trump campaign will say -- [ inaudible ] something ability african-americans or latinos, what's your response to paris' suggestion that they care more about the african-american vote than you so far? >> considering the polls show zero percent, i guess one percent would be like a 100% increase. yeah, maybe. i would say one thing i would give to both the general and paris, hillary clinton has to make sure that her exceptional qualifications and leadership do not become an argument for the status quo. and i think she has juggled that throughout the campaign. i think if you look at her

speeches. if you look at the number of plans she has put out. she is for change as well. and many earthquake is for change. everybody agrees that this is not working. it's not working for lots of kind of people. i think michelle and barack obama said it best. i think they would close out the election. i think on this message, that we unify the african-american community, which is at the cdc meeting and if you haven't seen that, my gosh, pull that speech up. it is one of the -- i don't think e i don't care what you think of barack obama, it's one of the most instraigs separational speeches of our lifetime. he said the ideas are on the bat lot. our freedom is on the ballot. our legacy is on the ballot. i think that's what african-americans think. you can't call montana and say, well you ka ij to this country with a bunch of racists and hope the get our vote? that's not what he said, though, so let's not be accurate a. minute ago you said something about mr. trump talking about coming after african-americans

and calling them racists and how he treats them as immigrants. that's patently false. if we make these claims, he did not say that in his opening statement. you tell me one thing he has said that has been negative and derogatory towards african-americans, you can't do it. he hasn't said it. let's be accurate. >> i'm sorry he said they come here, they break the law, they're rapists, then he said some of them are nice people. he said that word. that's just a fact. >> it's on tape. >> it's on tape. >> in terms of the african-american community, first of all i want to agree with you on one thing, which is the very forces that have been hitting the working class white america hit the inner city about 30 years ago, so you are right, african-americans have been halerred by the same forces of the discrimization. but his appeal to african-americans essentially it made the whole african-american community look like they were in a state of absolute catastrophe and a lot of people -- >> when were you in detroit in

have you been to baltimore a few years ago? >> yes. >> look at the educational system. >> his picture was of the entire african-american community. we can play the tape and then argue. >> play the tape. let's play the tape. >> this is why i said i was going to do the one time. okay. you know, because what's happened is, what happens about this, we talked about the enormity of the problems we have in this nation and alls we get down to is who said what about whom. can you go to hillary clinton about the deplorables, half of us are deplorables. half are not. my concerns about the issues that are out there for this nation and there's a lot more important than we sit around and we talk about some of these things that you see in the press and the news out there and that's why i'm asking people when i go on these talk shows and when i go there, sit back and think, really hard, ab things like the supreme court

the first question the second amendment. the heller decision with d.c., which was not about kid. it was about fun control in d.c. that was a poor decision in the supreme court followed by the mcdonald decision versus chicago. another 5-4 decision that codified gun control the 2nd amendment of the united states. those are things that are important to the americans that are out there, the makeup of the supreme court. the makeup of immigration. all of those things are important. i'd ask people to sit back and think hard, where do i want this nation to be that i am a part of and how do we get from? and that itself the reason i said, kind of step back. now what i'd like to do is that complept about the map. i really have a special map here. i have a special one i'd really like to see happen. because i think hillary will carry virginia. all right, start it again, i will show you where we will be at. okay. give us the yellow. edward mcmullen, here's, you

will love this one. okay. give trump florida. florida. give us colorado. virginia is actually going to be a blue state out there. but when you look at maine and you look at maine that's up there and actually then i think we have a shot out there for, it's a shot at nevada. actually what i was going for out there that didn't come up. i wanted to go to 269, 269. that's where i really want to be. i want to cover the house. >> well, 2nd amendment. >> and then -- [ inaudible ] >> maine. >> second is for maine. >> and there you go. >> there you are. now you talk about having fun and one to remember. let the house of representatives decide this one, we're at 269, 269. i think it would only be fitting for us to go there on this

election. that's kind of where we're looking at. >> that will unify the country. everybody will be unhappy. >> i just want to say if mr. trump has the message discipline of general kellogg, one of these maps might actually be true. >> put my head towards the microphone, another question real quick. go ahead to the microphone. >> can i pick up -- let me pick up something as people are coming forward. i think the big point that we really need to come back to is what's selinda and e.j. has been talking about. >> that is the division that is here in america and we picked it up in january of '15. and it was both bernie sanders and donald trump, two sides of the same coin and it was a vote against the status quo. this is a change election. but the reason that hillary

clinton is ahead in this change election is not because of her programs or where she's at, but the voters have rejected donald trump and it may be a situation where he hasn't gone his point across, but it does come down to demeanor and behavior and i think selinda hit it right on. it's the same thing we seen from the beginning. >> i do think. some of you are arguing that hillary clinton can be seen as an agent of change. i mean, she is the most establishment figure in america and when i have been out talking to trump supporters, these are people who have seen the last three presidents in a row elected on this idea that somehow i can make washington, the system work better, and they don't buy it anymore. their basic premise is you got to blow it up and that's what donald, again, so hillary clinton, you talk about a proposals, they're primarily as barack obama argues, building on

what he has already done. for, it's, you know, she really can't position herself as an agent of change, so what she's had to do and done successfully and donald trump has certainly helped is just reminded people of what they find unacceptable about donald trump. >> the reason it may not be a change election is because you have the right track or wrong track number which suggests it is, you got president obama's approval number, which is about 53, 54%, which says it isn't and the architect for continuity can actually appeal to people about a third or more of the people who say wrong track are actually democrats who are mad at republicans, though we are divided, but the, and so that's why i think it's a mistake, just to see this as a change election. >> one thing i would also add i'm quite sure, which i think is really, really important, is that underpinning a lot of the, i mean, it goes back to peter's

original point. the country is divide par partisanly, polarized, in some ways we'll e people will reflecting that and gone back to their corners. one of the dwiks with ehave is rom of government, with under pins the gender gap a. solid women believe there is a role for government. a mo majority of men say it's a good day when government hasn't hurt you. so and that government does more harm than good. so when you say blow up the system, that's a great message to independent men. it's not a great message to independent women who think you can do a lot of destruction. there will be a lot of peripheral damage when you proceed up the system. how about revamping the system? so that message had already in it an innate gender gap to it. >> i say there are trump supporters in this room, clinton supporters in this room. be respectful with your

messages, also, if you ask a question, no speechs, no statements. only ask the question, i learned if television, anything that lasts more than 15 seconds. >> that's great. >> so. you get to go first. >> okay. thank you so much for this great panel. i have two questions, for, first. >> one question. >> if mr. trump wins the election, how would he manage the u.s.-china relations and with his emphasis on paying their own fair share, how would that work with taiwan and also if someone can talk about the clear hillary clinton on u.s.-china relations. >> i so want to talk about foreign policy. i want to ask general kellogg, take a moment. talk about foreign policy, if donald trump had said throughout his campaign that he's going to rewrite the deal. he's going to have fair trade. he's going to end the bad deals that we have. re remark on that. he hasn't said how he's going to

do that. >> the three questions instead of one. it really is his relations with china and frankly it's the same thing he will do with the russians. but i went back to my soviet role. sometimes i do miss the soviets. they were predictable. with the chinese, it will be mutual respect that's out there. they also have to understand that they're an important trading partner with the united states of america, that we have concerns, obviously, that most americans do, based on what's happened in the south china sea and the ability to fortify islands the haiku said that's illegal going forward. that's a huge, there is over i think 40 billion dollars of trade goes through there annually. such an important part of the world. i think it will be his relationships will be with every foreign nation is one of respect. it's sort of like he working with the russians. whether you like it or not, the fact is you have to have a

global nuclear power with respect out there. president reagan did wit gorbachev. he called him the evil empire. he was able to work. i think we have all nations. you are asking a great question. it's a huge question out there. i think you have to establish those good relationships between senior partners that are out there. >> hey, guys, thank you so much for coming. great interesting conversation. so if the polls hold as they the trends continue, democrats would have won the popular vote in the last five out of six elections. with that being said, on the other side, republicans seem to have taken a wave during the mid-terms. with a coalition of democrats, it seems to be pretty apt for taking the presidency. but a coalition of republicans it seems to be pretty apt to taking the house in congress. moving forward, how do you see the american political parties re-aligning, if that, indeed, happens? >> probably for ej. >> as you answer that. just look, you started to

mention earlier about the house and the senate, so feel fry to jump in on that. >> thank you. no, it's a good question. i think all republicans should reread the autopsy published in 2013, which if you read what it said about the problems republicans were creating thems with latino voters with young people, with women, everything written in 2013 could be about this campaign and i think that when you look at if you want to build a future for the republican party, they cannot lose all of these groups by the margins that they lost in the last election or this one and that's why all things being equal clinton is ahead and probably will win. now, the very disadvantaged republicans have in presidential elections, is a huge advantage in mid-terms, because the republicans are much stronger with older white voters, older white voters are a larger share

of the mid-term electorate. there were 40 or 45 million missing voters. you look at 2008 to 20 10r or 2 40 million to 45 million missing voters. i think the -- that's the democrats' problem. they got to turn out their core constituents better. they'll have to cut their losses among white working class voters. when they did well in midterms in '06. the republican margins were smaller in that group. i said what i was going to say. i think there were a bunch of senate races that seem have shifted favorably to the democrats in the last couple of weeks. so that i think their odds of taking the senate are higher, not lock, but i think they're in much better shape. in the house, i think they will gain at least in the teens,

possibly to high teens. on a good night it will get into the 20s. it's very hard for them to get to 30 seats. that would take an blow out for them to get the majority back in the house. >> quick one in the presidential elections. lectoral college works against republicans. it's a given. here's a cautionary note, though, i think people made a huge mistake. mr. trump's a populist. they tag him with a republican label. let me give you a comment made to me. a person came in, he was from northern virginia. he's i'm voting for trump and i'm not voting for barbara comstock. she's a republican running for congress. i think what happens in republican party -- i don't know if they have caught on to this yet. they have to be really really careful. because they have not unified much like the democrats have

unified behind hillary clinton. there's going to be a disenfranchised element if they lose it, i guarantee you inguarantee you that the next time this comes around they'll not reach the presidential election. i don't think if peter pan runs. they're not going to do it. there's a real frustration among a lot of people out there that the republican party has not come together unlike the democrat party. people sit back in the autopsy of the election. they should sit back and look at that. [ inaudible question ] >> thank you. >> general, you served in vietnam, i was in the streets with lots of others trying to stop the war and bring the troops home. >> you failed miserably, i was there two tours. >> we're very glad you made it

back. >> i was a canvasser and poll watcher for george mcgovern. i remember that election about being about change as well. aside from the fact he made lots of money what does donald trump think was so really great about those times that we should change back? >> he's not talking about going back. when we talk about a change election, and frankly, the reason i joined up with him, the frustration a lot of people have is that it was said earlier you've heard -- it's not be republican, it's been democrat as well. everybody comes in and talks about change, we're going to go this, everything going to happen. it doesn't happen. the frustration you get somebody like me out there, we can't even get a budget passed on time. you know, you can't get a balanced budget going. there's -- the national defense authorization act that supports

our military has been yet to be passed this year. go figure. we've got kids out there on the front lines doing stuff like that. you look at washington, d.c., and i'd rather listen to the people in washington, kansas, than people in washington, d.c. because the frustration i get out there when you look at it. that's what he's going to that's the reason why a lot of us have come online to do it. nobody's perfect. we got that. that's what i talk about if you want the status quo. i'm a big believer in patterns, people don't change who they are in the long term. people in the washington, d.c., once you come into the system and you stay eight, 10, 16, 20 years, you're invested in washington, d.c. and it's really hard to change. that's the reason why we came out recently on the whole concept about constitutional amendment, maybe our 28th, on term limits for congressman and

senators. maybe it's about time we do something like that. my brother was in state government in the state of california. and there are term limits in california. okay. maybe that's where you want to go. i don't know. >> just real quick, mr. trump when he says make america great again, nobody put a year on it. that was the hillary clinton campaign saying we're going to go back to the times of slavery and jim crow. he didn't say that. make america great again means for what it means for you. when was america great for you. if the past four years, past eight years has been good for you, your jobs have gone up, your students don't have any student loan debt you paid off your house, if things are great for you, congratulations. vote for hillary clinton. if not, if there was a time in your life when things were better, i can only speak for me, that's what it means. if it means you want a better job, you want to have a time with things were at a better place for you economically for

your family, that's what make america great again means. it does not mean what hillary clinton and the liberals try to say is put a date or time on it to make -- to reinforcement the narrative that mr. trump is trying to put black people back in chains by president joe biden said in highpoint, north carolina which didn't get a lot of traction by the media. >> we just said that would be a great question to add to a poll. when were things better for you. i'd like to see -- for you our your family. i'd like to see the answer to that. >> i got it. >> my question is for my former professor. >> i stacked the audience with my favorite students. >> and before, i have to make this point. i'm an african-american from baltimore. we are not all uneducated and living in hell. and my standing here right now

is physical proof of that. you can't put all ethnic groups in one box. i have to say that. my question is how much do you think -- obama ran against the well-established politician in hillary clinton in '08 and i think that helped him. the primary against hillary clinton in '08. how much do you think running against an anti-establishment figure in the primary, a populist who had much bigger crowds than she did, much higher energy, supposedly, how much do you think that's going to help her in the general election running against a populist? he's getting bigger crowds than she is and getting all the headlines. >> i'm curious what my colleagues think is what did bernie do to hillary essentially is your question. bernie mobilized a whole lot of new people to politics just like barack obama did. which i think is important for the long haul and very good for the long haul. if -- and i think bernie and his

folks are going to try to keep them involved. they should keep themselves involved. i think that there was a period when it was going to be a little bit iffy for her, whether the bernie constituency was so disappointed at losing, the clinton as kind of establishment figure they weren't going to vote for trump. a pollster friend of mine said the choices for young people, the clinton, third party and the couch and trump wasn't in that calculation. because of what bernie and clinton did in the platform and on specific issues like student loans, i think -- and because with all due respect to my trump colleagues, because of some of the things donald trump has done to create a sense of urgency about the election, i think young people are going to vote. i think one of the most useful things bernie did is that he restored our sense of what the political spectrum looked like.

for a long time, i used to say that when people called barack obama a socialist, i have friends who are socialists, they were insulted when barack obama was called a socialist. and we had a kind of truncated view of the political spectrum. i think bernie has given us a much fuller sense of what the full range of debate is. and i think that's hugely useful for the country. >> just quickly on that, the bernie voters going to come home to the democratic party? >> they are home. to be perfectly honest, the one person who united them was donald trump. when we looked in june, 9% of bernie voters had positive views of donald trump. 81% had negative views. and so the idea that somehow they were out there to be grabbed or simply mentioning them in the speech just really had no resonance. the only question is as ej said, would they vote. i still think there's some challenge on that front. my guess is they're going to

turn out. but there will be a lot of people who will be sitting back rather than actively involved. and the one thing that hasn't been mentioned here tonight, is when this election is over, the chapter that is going to be written is michelle obama and barack obama. >> oh, yeah. >> those are the two people who drove this election as much as anything in terms of moral terms and in terms of being able to stimulate the groups that hillary clinton needed to have. >> unfortunately we have time for only one more question. >> thank you, good to see you. >> thank you. as far as i'm aware neither your normal boss nor his father have been willing to endorse the republican candidate. if we assume the polls today are correct and that the republicans are going to take a thumping two weeks from tomorrow. tell me from a gop strategy perspective what goes on