that we actually wait for the inspector general to come out with a full report. i believe if you are going to address changes in a -- in 150 institutions, we're probably going to need an independent audit for those facilities. what is broken in each individual place. finding is that there are systemic things across, but there is also a process that is different at every v.a. facility. it is going to be absolutely vital that we figure out how to get a handle on those differences, because without knowing those, it is hard for us to judge what types of changes we need to legislate. two surgeons used residents to help clean operating rooms so they could actually treat the patients in a faster and better way, so they could utilize their time to actually help people. they got put on administrative

leave for using their residents to help clean the operating room because the regular operating room staff was so slow. is that what we want to be doing? should they get the greatest care is to mark the best care? i think they should be in front of me and every member of my family when it comes to care. >> somewhere in the back of this old mind of mine -- [inaudible] because there were problems with the v.a. health care system back the, talk of closing them v.a. hospitals and letting veterans go to the private would where they presumably get better treatment. why not just scratch the whole system? >> several reasons, but one reason of great importance is

there are certain areas which only the v.a. has the talent and expertise. traumatic brain injury, spinal cord problems, ptsd, prostheses. there are a number of areas that really the v.a. is the place. i am afraid if you get away with a lot of that, then, obviously, we would lose that ability to treat our veterans, particularly the war-when did. -- the war-wounded. though with this proposal, the veteran wants to go to a health care provider and he has medicare or a tri-care, that veteran can choose that. i would argue that there are many health care providers that are as good or better in other areas your it in other words, the veterans should have the choice of where he or she can get the best treatment. that is what this is all about. >> this is limited.

limited geographically. we are not trying to undermine the v.a. we're trying to improve the v.a. , but we're also trying to improve access at the same time. i want to ask about the extra hiring of doc yours and nurses -- [nooctors and nurses audio] >> we are here to talk about what we think is a very targeted thation to a real problem the ig and a bunch of other investigations have shown. >> there is a shortage of positions in this country, and it is going to get worse. we are releasing a report on physician training and supplementation by the federal government and what is going to happen. the v.a. is going to have to compete, whether there is more money or not. the problem right now is not physicians. the problem is the work rate on

average in the v.a. of -- case case of sergeant bergdahl, this agreement in my view puts future men and women who are serving in the military at great risk. these individuals were judged in that ifmo frequently they were released, it would cause a great risk to the men and women who are serving in the battlefield. , as senatorduals graham calls them the fab five, individualshese will be able to move around year, and after one according to the qatar spokesman, they will be able to go back to afghanistan. 30% of those who have left

guantánamo have already reentered the fight. this is the hardest and toughest of all, wanted war criminals. guilty ofm supposedly murdering thousands of shiite muslims while he was in charge , i believe.andahar so this decision to bring sergeant bergdahl home, and we applaud that he is home, is ill founded. it is a mistake. and it is putting the lives of american servicemen and women at risk, and that, to me, is unacceptable to the american people. >> these were taliban leaders -- >> no, they were al qaeda. remember, there is al qaeda, too. >> [inaudible]

>> they were associated with an part of the taliban. i am sure you are aware that in 2001, the taliban and al qaeda were working together, which is the reason why we went there. these individuals were working with al qaeda. >> [inaudible] quan,.re held in >> these people dedicated their lives to destroying us. they have dedicated their very existence -- why do you think when a judgment is made that if they release them, they would pose great risk to the united states of america? and al qaeda.an don't you understand that? man, like you said, so you might remember that in 2001, al qaeda -- al qaeda found a haven with the taliban. that is why we initially invaded afghanistan. to somehow separate these people from al qaeda is just damn foolishness. >> i understand your problem

with hitting up the five taliban members. that is very clear. i still cannot get my head around applauding -- [inaudible] think the deal should not have been made, as i have said many times. but i would make every effort to continue to make every effort to bring him home. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] way, veterans affairs committee bernie sanders introduced his v.a. overhaul bill earlier this week. on the senate floor earlier today, they voted to confirm u.s. harper to be the representative to the u n human rights council. he will be the first native american to be a u.s. ambassador. they also advanced the fornation of sharon bowen the commodity futures trading commission. senate gavels back in at 2:15

eastern, live on c-span2. live when we will be the burdens institution has a discussion on the results of the european union election spirits beakers will include british and irish ambassadors to the u.s. and representatives from the imf and from the media. that is expected to start at 2:15. we will have it live. another tuesday and another set of primaries. eight states across the country having primaries today. a look at some of them from this morning's "washington journal." host: a lot of focus on mississippi but seven other states with primaries. alabama, iowa, south dakota, montana, new mexico, and california. we have the politics editor for on thel.com joining us phone. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's talk about these other races, including in iowa and the republican senate primary. crowdedhere is a very

field seeking iowa's first open senate seat in three decades. a handful of republicans. the real question tonight is whether the front runner will get the 35% threshold to avoid a convention. that would happen a couple weeks later. if no candidate in iowa reaches that 35% threshold in the primary, goes to a delicate in the convention which can be very unpredictable. republicans do not want that scenario. host: there is an open senate seat in idaho with the retirement of a senator. guest: in initial parts of the cycle, people thought the former governor, the first republican to announce candidacy there, and there is a tea party line candidate. it has not panned out. believe there will be a resounding primary victory this evening. in california, the polls will be open late because of the

time difference. what is happening there? guest: polls close at 11:00 p.m. in california eastern time, but we could be up until one or -- 1:00 or 2:00 in the rare morning waiting for results. this is the top two primary system. the top two vote, regardless of party, move onto the general election. so there are a lot of contests in california tonight. the true competitive contest that we're watching are in the 31st and the 33rd district, the two house races. we do not expect results until much later. host: about the mississippi primary, gene taylor, a former democrat now running as a republican, trying to recapture a seat in the house of representatives. guest: absolutely, he is earning in the fourth district against the republican who defeated him. there is a chance this race could go to a runoff which could be interesting. politicsne of our

editor's that was in this city over the weekend, and it is a tough sell to be a democrat for 20 years and then switch parties and run as a republican. things do not look too great for gene taylor, but it could happen, he could make the runoff. host: tupelo mississippi, the headline from the daily journal -- we talked earlier with a reporter on the ground in mississippi. from your vantage point, why does this become such a closely watched race in the mississippi senate primary? race: i think this epitomizes the thing we have seen in so many senate primaries over the last cycles. that is about the so-called establishment republicans getting challenged to mostly tea party-outlined challenges. the longtime incumbent epitomizes a lot of that. we have seen those. there is as show slightest edge and there is a

small minute chance this could go to a runoff. there is a third candidate in the race. so we could see this race extended another few months. that is not good for cochran. primary and now -- e-house primary and alabama were senator baucus is retiring. in winner is expected to win the general election. what is happening there? guest: it is interesting. one thing i can tell you is the eventual nominee is coming to congress. this is a heavily republican district. state representative hall dimarco is the front runner . placecond space -- race could go to a few different people. this is a very wealthy district.

candidates across the country are starving to cash to get on the television airwaves, this is a race where that has not been a problem. host: the politics editor for rollcall and seven things to watch. you can check the story out online at rollcall.com. thank you for being with us. in this race between chris mcdaniel, republican challenger to thad cochran, first elected in 9072 to the house and has been in this and this is the carter administration, has there been any reliable polling recently on what to expect today? been a numberave of polls out in this race. the question of reliability is maybe a sanford -- separate question. mississippi is a fairly small state, only about 3 million people. people say it is a bit difficult to get an accurate read on how things are looking. having said that, it is shaping up to be a fairly tight race today. host: why? guest: this has been an ugly

contest, for one thing. a lot of people have said this is the nastiest campaign mississippi has seen in more than a generation now. the campaign sort of blew up about two and a half weeks ago. there were four people who were arrested and charged in what holies in madison, mississippi are calling a conspiracy to take photographs of senator cochran's wife who has lived in a nursing home for the past 13 years with dementia. in an image of mrs. cochran was used at the end of an anti-cochran video that was posted briefly online on april 26. host: let me share some of the ads, the two latest ads from the cochran and mcdaniel campaign related to this issue. first from senator cochran. hist just gets worst, now friend and cohost charged with felonies. the scandal spreads.

had enough? >> senator thad cochran is the makes mississippi great. endorsed by in ra and national right to life. voted against obamacare over 100 times. rise up and say no to dirty politics and yes to our strong conservative leader thad cochran. >> i am thad cochran, and i approve this message. host: the latest from the cochran campaign. he has been in the u.s. senate for the last 36 years. this response from his republican challenger, state senator chris mcdaniel. >> 41 years in washington, and even good men can lose touch with their conservative roots. sadly, thad cochran voted for billions in wasteful spending, like the bridge to nowhere. pay eightised his own times. the alternative conservative republican chris mcdaniel will lead the fight to appeal obamacare. as a state senator senator, he fought wasteful spending and put prayer back in schools. faux conservative kris mcdaniel.

>> i am chris mcdaniel, and i approve this message. in mississippi, voters going to the polls today. give us a sense of his background, chris mcdaniel, and why he decided to challenge senator cochran and who is supporting him. guest: chris mcdaniel is an attorney. he was elected to the state senate in 2007. he comes from jones county which is in the southern part of the state, what we call the pine belt. he was ambitious since he arrived at the state capitol. he has been very aggressive on pushing gun rights and other issues. and he is someone who was seen as sort of an up-and-coming politician among tea party supporters. that is where he is getting a lot of his support. issueup until this involving senator cochran's wife suffering from dementia and a mcdaniel supporter posting that video, where was the trajectory

of the campaign? who was ahead in your mind? guest: i think of to that point, people probably were looking at the usual advantage of the incumbency. mississippi is a very long history of sending people back to the senate for a very long time. in fact, the last time the state voted someone out of the senate was in 1942. host: in terms of turnout today, what are you seeing so far? holes close at 7:00 local time, it :00 eastern time. -- polls close at 7:00 local time. guest: we have a reporter in the field who says he is seeing light turnouts at this point. it could rain in parts of the state today which may affect people who are really apathetic and do not want to bother to get out to vote. election officials for the state are predicting a light to medium turnout. host: emily is following the story for the associated press, joining us in mississippi. thank you for being with us. look for coverage of the

results from that mississippi race tonight on c-span. we are live at the brookings institution for discussion on the eu elections. the european parliament held elections from may 22 to may to the five with a lyrical parties that are somewhat skeptical of the european union, favoring a stronger nation state, winning seats and changing the makeup of the eu. former british prime minister tony blair called the resultant wake up call to europe and britain, so this discussion will focus on the eu elections and what is ahead for europe. speakers will include the british and irish ambassadors to the u.s. and representatives from the media and the imf.

right, we will start. thank you so much for being here despite the rain which kind of threatened for a little while but has almost stopped. it is really wonderful to have all of you here. i think we will have a very lively and interesting discussion. thanks to a truly fantastic panel. i am so grateful for the panelists joining us. the timing is pretty good, you know, a little more than a week after the european parliamentary elections and in the middle of this debate that has erupted from the presidency of the commission. kumar who has a flagship program, global conversation for euro new spirit she came all the way from london yesterday. -- from paris, i'm sorry.

isabel, for those of you who watched her, but maybe not everybody has had a chance to, , it was the first european presidential debate. as i said that, i know some are wondering what i am saying, presidential debate? and i watched it and was really impressed by the moderation. so we invited her and she was gracious to accept. is the department director for europe at the ims. before that, he was the director for the strategy and policy department. i do not think i exaggerate in any way in saying that he is one of the top economists in the world, top people at the imf. and there are few people who have as deep a knowledge about

the european economy and the challenges ahead for europe than him. and sometimessure the tough time to negotiate with him when he was chief of the imf , but that was quite some time ago. coeditor, and our book is out in front of the door. jacques is a french economist, and nonresident senior fellow at brookings. he's very modest, cycad arguing with them what i should put in terms of description on the handouts. he was senior advisor to the minister french prime with privatenomist and public sector experience. he is one of the few organizers of the annual economist meeting which meets every year and

brings together economists from around the world. two very dear friends, the messenger of ireland in the ambassador of the united kingdom. check onson, i did not every single position she has had, but she seems to have gotten all the important positions. among them, of course, ambassador to france. but of course, to brussels, to the eu, so she is extremely knowledgeable about the eu affairs. o, to global., to affairs and now to washington. she reminded me that she also negotiated much more recently on , but that isgram when ireland was already doing pretty well. sir peter, previously ambassador in france, in turkey where we became friends, and now in washington.

again, i do not think i can how he is a top figure of british and european diplomacy and really also a dear friend. thanks for being here. some of themhire as staff when we lose people. [laughter] so thanks a lot for being here. i think the degree to which the debate has erupted over who should lead the commission president, it is somewhat surprising to a lot of people. i mean, we knew there would be debate and some horse trading, negotiations, but i think it has become very serious. ofi think this will be one the topics we have to address him and i just in itself -- i do not think the debate is all about the personality of jean-claude junker, who of course has a lot of experience,

but some say it is a little bit representing the past of europe, not necessarily the future. but there is a whole thought process and believe now that you cannot have an eu election like we had it, we cannot have isabel moderating these people -- and of course i will ask her what she thinks about it -- and the first ever really historical beyond borders lyrical debate. i do not think there has ever been a debate like that. and then somebody wins and you say, well, that is very nice and it was kind of entertaining, but now let's get down to serious business and choose the candidate to lead the country. it is going to be difficult. i do not know what will happen in the end, but i think there is a strong enough view that they should not be the case and the elections should be taken fiercely. one final thing is that all the

center parties, the kind of mainstream parties, not the extreme right or extreme left, but the liberals, center-right, of course, the centerleft, the greens, they have all rally behind jean-claude junker. it is not just that it is the center-right supporting him, it is the whole moderate spectrum, maybe. -- maybe not matt brown, but i do not know, we will find out. he is another one of the leading .eople debating this in europe on the other hand, there is the view that, and that was expressed today in the financial times -- i will read it out to you very briefly. all nations was shared ties of language, history, and lyrical culture that democracy can live and breathe. at a european level, you cannot

replicate the forms of moxie, elections and political parties, but you can't replicate the forms of democracy. you have to bind democracy together. and he says that is why you end up with the absurd situation in which a leader is chosen that they have never heard of. so there are two very, very different positions. is one of the key topics ahead of us for the european institution. behind that, there is also the whole issue of the future of the eurozone. as an economist and director of the global economic and development program, we are very interested in that. there is the view among most economists, most economists have i interacted with the leave, and a lot of the u.s. economists actually believe that you cannot this happen without a much

for the degree of fiscal party coordination. butpolitical federalism something that comes pretty close to a pretty high degree of political federalism. , not all of europe is amongst the union. but if that is true, can you achieve that coordination at the policy level without having a corresponding democratic space? you think a lot of the debate revolves around that. not everybody agrees that you need that degree of policy coordination, and i hope reza will give his opinion on how much i'll is the coordination is needed. policy coordination is needed. there are political consequences which are hard to face but which do not go away. i think that perhaps is the

deeper dimension of the debate we are experiencing around the head of the commission. with that, let's turn to ann anderson first. lessons do you take from the elections? how do you look at the path forward for european institutions? anything you want to share with us to start and then we will have an interactive discussion. but focus on two or three main points. >> ok, thank you for a very challenging introduction. been a very has sobering election, no question about that. maybe to make if you out point -- point about the outcome, personally, i think our dissipation rates were disappointing. 57% you have 43% voting, people staying home, that points to a certain disconnect and

apathy, which is a concern. secondly, i think we cannot a way, there are 28 separate messages here. because we have 28 member states. as you all will find in european elections, people are addressing their national governments at least as much as they are sending a message to brussels. thirdly, we have to recognize this and so far as the world and ofar as thede -- ins headlines, 30% of the vote went to the euro skeptics and populist parties and candidates. i think there always has to be concerned when a climate is created in which extreme views are taking more of the space. i think that certainly is food for very serious thought. another point i would make is in

terms of how it is looked at from across the atlantic here. i think there is no question that europe is still going to be very much a strong functioning partner for the united states some worries are out of place. but i do think there is something important to be said about the message that came from this 30%. it is something we have to face together in europe in the united states. because fundamentally, i think this was a message about fear of globalization and that there is really no question but that, you know, europe is not the nme. europe is really not the target appeared europe is the lightning rod for a lot of this discontent. that they are at the mercy of forces that they cannot

control. obviously, the united states is not immune to that either. amongns are playing out sectors of the population here. so i think it is something allyrtant transatlantic that we take account of. in terms of what it is going to mean in europe, it is clear what their leaders have already said, it cannot be business as usual. we're going to see some policy adjustments. this is been a vote really about the economy and about growth and jobs. austerity fatigue. in european leaders are going to have to take that into account. of course, the challenge is, how do you keep the necessary systems while softening the edge s of her strategy? there will be concerns about the way we do business in europe.

i think that question that has been around for so long about how we communicate europe to our citizens, that message comes into even sharper focus. in terms of what happens in the institutions, let's see how things play out in the european parliament. this 30% of the populist eurosceptic vote, it is actually a very fractured vote, fractured between right and left. the right are trying to create alliances between themselves. the 70% will certainly be incentivized to work even more closely together. so let's wait and see just what impact this 30% has. in terms of the question raised about the president of the commission, i am not going to get into individuals and personalities. you laid themas

out are there on both sides, but i do think that this result is going to make the european alternately, even more carefully at the qualities they are going to require and whoever takes over this key role, who is going to be able to implement the kind of policies that are going to be there, who is going to be able to articulate a vision that has resonance for people in europe, a skilled communicator which we clearly need. so i think in the ultimate decision, we are going to see people looking at those questions again and seen who best fits those boxes. >> i really hope you are right on the last one. moderated the debate in the heart of central europe. on the debate, what impact did it have on your perception, and how did you follow the campaign

in europe? was it an important campaign or was it restricted to a very small minority of european citizens? e said, there were 28 campaign so it was difficult to follow. the ones that got the most attention word the campaigns in france and the one in britain where everybody was expected to make such big gains and they did. in terms of the debate, the andte was intense exhausting. i think those two words have never been used together to describe the european election. you have these candidates in front of you representing europe , and they had to make the case for europe, but they also had to make themselves known. our starting point when we had this debate was not meant to try and eek out what different policies they have got, because these guys are very similar in many respects. it was more nobody knows who the hell they are.

it was to present them to our viewers so people could identify who jean-claude junker is, who martin schulz is, ska keller who i do not think anyone had ever heard of, and guy verhofstadt. so it was exciting, but also thatht home some truths europeans do not really know who is running. 41% of the electorate voted. generally, people are feeling quite apathetic about europe. therefore, even though we have this interesting backdrop with the rise of euro skepticism, the economy in so much trouble, people cannot be pulled into vogue. debates are great. did they fire up interest? the jury is out on that one. so the eurovision song contest was probably followed more closely than the european

elections. >> as a matter of statistics, the participation in the u.s. congressional election, but the presidential year and in the off year, averages to about he same as the european parliamentary election. when there isar not a presidential election, the purchase patient for the u.s. congress is less. so when we say that number is not very impressive -- >> but this time it was going to be different. it is ok, but you have to judge yourself by the lowest common denominator. if you are setting the target high, surely you want to beat your past result in more than 1%, especially with these kind of candidates standing there. >> i agree. i would be very careful before i debate you. course the race and national elections in europe are much higher. >> that is true. it is more politicized to some degree.

s, and i will come back to all of you later, but bringing the topic more to the economic side, europe, after all, has gone through very serious -- not all countries of going through a very serious crisis, but even -5% or in 2009 had a something like that growth rate. is there not economic recovery? economics perceived, and how can you link the economic argument to the debate? >> thank you. throught, eurozone went a crisis for two years. the critical question that has made for too long the euro breakdown the possibility was, if i may say, as simple as that. of the euro zone member -- are the euro zone

member countries willing to stick together at all price? that is a politically terrifying question. it took two years of intense to get a debates credible and positive answer. made -- [indiscernible] designed policy and institutional changes for the future. draghi later mario talk about this political -- will do whatever it takes. aree is the financial days -- danger zone, moving towards a stronger integration.

my guess is that it will work. , unemploymentside has skyrocketed in the south and social conditions have deteriorated. the european elections, unsurprisingly, are proof of many frustrations. frustrations against what? against excessive immigration, possibly. against hollande in france, certainly. greece,uncertainty in definitely. [indiscernible] enough, two-thirds of the populace everywhere want to keep the euro. greece, spain, france, and germany, among others.

these political feelings? a newly elected european parliament is no expression of the eurosceptic union. your critics will have a louder voice in brussels, but they are divided. at me be blunt but clear, they will prove much less experiential than, say, the tea party in washington. you isre important by the democratic exercise we are with the choice of the president of the commission. the pro-european parties unanimously agreed on the name of the parliament candidate, mr. junker. --s approach has been

[indiscernible] electro appear close to -- electoral fraud from mr. schulz. this will prove watershed in european politics. wide pro-european majority that this parliament will exercise traction for a more integrated eurozone which is definitely needed. parties, froman the center-right, from the centerleft, the greens, and the liberals will present a diversity of european contingencies. they should work across the aisle, like in washington in the past. been for some time , not a coalition like in

germany. this strategy would raise the perception of a cartel which runs the eu to the detriment of many europeans. eurosceptic narrative. finally, policy debates in brussels and pragmatic responses are challenges facing the union and member states, mostly on protection. the major role is to combine physical conventions and to growth-oriented policies. there are challenges. but the views from brussels are clear. they eurozone is moving forward. >> thank you. very optimistic and forceful message.

i do want to share with you that even i was sometimes worried about the exit. i do not think it would happen, mainly for political reasons. but i would say large majority of professional opinion in washington was convinced that greece would exit the euro, jacques steadfastly had the view that it would not. i just wanted to put that on the record. for ayou are responsible lot of this stuff as director of the imf europe department. can you tell us just a few words on the economy, in particular, how do you link this populist -- it is not a majority, but 30% is a large vote -- how much of it is economic distress, unemployment? also, deflation now -- the european inflation target is 2% or just below.

it is now running at less than half. all hell would break loose if inflation was 3.5%, right? i mean, think about it. 1%, almost getting close to zero, and nothing seems to be happening. kemal.ks, thanks for the kind introduction. before i come to the story, let me indoors what you mentioned -- dorse which you mentioned. market sentiments in particular over the last two years is really remarkable. dimensiond one other to add perspective. if you look at the european project as an economic integration and economic performance project over the last 50 years, there has been

considerable success. i think it is a major success story, particularly this year is the 10th anniversary of the new member states joining the european union. it is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. if you take the perspective of integrating eastern europe or raising living standards in the whole of europe over the past 50 years, i think the european story is a major global success. having said that, i will now come to my normal job. i think the challenge, what you mentioned, the relationship between economic distress and what you see in opinion polls and what is translated into election results is very striking. and at the heart of it at the moment is the challenge of jobs mentioned, what anne earlier. that is at the heart of the problems here it it is on

acceptable with high levels of unemployment. the question moving forward is how to address that, because from a political social perspective, it is remarkable over the last three or four years of economic stress that we have seen a lot of hardship. we have not seen the sort of social structure from emerging-market crisis or in earlier episodes of crisis in the world. but the sustainability of that requires job creation. it requires reducing unemployment. mentioned earlier, many european economies have very high debt. as you mentioned, inflation is incredibly low. when inflation is low, it is difficult to bring it down. when debt is high, growth suffers. so i think the number one

challenge is this issue of growth and inflation being related. shorthand support through economic policies to increase growth on the short run. there is also a long-run problem that i will come back to. but we have been advocating that there is need for supportive macro policies. given the high level of debt, fiscal policy at least has to do no harm. from this year onwards, the stance of fiscal policy in europe is neutral. so a big burden is on monetary policy. our view has been there is room for conventional and unconventional monetary osce sing in europe -- easing in europe, and we had to create the potentialeform to see growth. we need short-term growth to .ome back to provide that space

there is that need. it is encouraging that the ecb is talking about action this week here at one hopes -- >> the meeting is on thursday. >> the meeting is on thursday. there talking about acting, and in light of the recent growth and inflation numbers, it is necessary to act. but there is also a long-term issue. we calculate that right now potential output, with the european economies are capable of growing on average in the eurozone i'm a is only .5%. .5% is hardly adequate to stabilize, let alone reduce the problem. that rate of growth needs to be brought up. that requires him and this is where the election results are a complication -- one fears that they may stand in the way of needed reform, particularly labor and product market reform. on the other hand, it is

necessary for the growth to come back to undertake those reforms. i would also state there are two other areas where it is necessary at the european level to move. in the u.s., as many of you know, the reliance on bank credit is much lower than it is in europe. in europe, the markets are not as much developed. corporate's rarely go to the capital markets. they have to rely on the banking system. the baking systems are weak. systems are weak. europe is capital in an urgent task to increase the ability of credit and potential growth in the long run. issue we point is an are currently discussing with our european colleagues in the context of our annual consultation, that the current fiscal framework in europe, the

governance of it, is worth looking at. the current fiscal framework is based on a framework which is ,ased on targets for deficits targets for structural deficits. but when you have different levels of debts across europe, some very high and some lower, the same kind of targets do not make sense across. as i told you at the beginning, given that debt is at the heart -- the debt overhang, not just the public sector but also the private sector, you need to have mechanisms that look at debts and how to bring them down, rather than simply on the fiscal side. stocks, right? your take on the latest events question mark and a more

pointed question, i remember david cameron's very important was -- which he gave in london. view on hisrong perspective in europe. one thing that i was almost surprised by in that speech was the emphasis he put as a british prime minister on the need for the eurozone to court in eight and -- to court in eight -- coordinate and integrate further. the swedish finance minister later said the opposite, saying it is the eurozone -- if the eurozone integrates further, it could be the evening of the european union. it was not the british prime minister's view on the eurozone. at the same time, it is clear that the u.k. will not join in

the foreseeable future, and the british prime minister and leadership as a whole, although not everybody, is quite fiercely opposed to further politicaltion or integration in europe. when you take these two things -- on the one hand, yes, the eurozone has to integrate more, jacqueseard reza and putting forth arguments in that direction, with the statement that the u.k. will never be part of that, what does this mean for the future of europe and for the future of europe where the u.k. is part of it? and there are so many good reasons why it should be part of it. on that point, how are these two statements compatible? l, for niceu, kema and easy questions. [laughter] stuff not cover all the

anne said which i entirely agree on the consequences of elections and what it means on the state of europe. first, i think the rise of eurosceptic parties in a number a countries, france, greece, number of others, it is a significant development. there is one sense in which this is a traditional cut a protest vote. my foreign secretary said the government is getting a very good kicking. you would expect that at a time when the economy is difficult and you are struggling to recover from a recession. but there is a broader message. as david cameron, mike prime minister said -- mike prime minister, said, we cannot just shrug off these and carry on as if nothing has happened. we have to look at what this need -- means. we need a new approach which recognizes that europe is defective. it has to focus a bit more on jobs and growth and making

europe better. it was not only david cameron who reached that conclusion. the president of france said europe has become unreadable, distant, incomprehensible, even for member states. this cannot go on. he made a point which david cameron has made about what we , allowingdiarity europe to do what europe should be doing, which is better done at that level rather than the state level. president hollande said we need europe to be simple and clear, to be effective where it is expected to be, and withdraw from areas where it is not necessary. that is an indication of the sort of reactions amongst political leaders. the italian prime minister says the answer is better europe, not more europe, and that is a reaction to these elections.

i think it is a bit of a wake-up number of european governments, and it is an indication that europe needs to repair itself better for the prepare itself better for the future, be more flexible, focus on competitiveness, doing the job better, rather than just sticking with what many people would regard now as a somewhat out of date federalist agenda. i think that is the attitude which -- certainly the attitude futureovernment for the leaders of the european union institutions. on the people focused future and who can rise to the challenge is to make europe better, respond to public opinion, rather than being stuck in the past and business as usual. your second question, how do we reconcile these two different messages? of course, they are not entirely consistent. are two points the prime

minister is making. first, we have as much interest in the eurozone succeeding as of member of the eurozone, the currency union. we may not be a member of it. we have decided we do not wish to be a member of the currency union, along with another 10 or 11 member states. but half of the united kingdom's foreign trade is with other members of the eurozone. about 60% is with members of the european union. we need it to succeed. it gives us no satisfaction at all, expect when dealing with people who tell us we have done everything wrong, to have a growth rate is your of 3.1%. moving beyond that, the european average is down at 1.2%. unemployment rates are great deal higher for many members of the eurozone. every interest in the eurozone solving its problems. we recognize that if you're going to deal with the problems that come with having a currency but without a fiscal monetary union, the eurozone needs to

strengthen and we will give our support to that in whatever way that needs to be done. the prime minister does not mean to say that we are going to join tomorrow. the united kingdom is not likely to join the eurozone tomorrow. we have to continue dealing with our own economic facilities like everyone else. we dropped a deep. we went into a deep hole. public finances went up to about almost 20 -- 12%. we managed to half that since then, and we have restored our level of growth from eight teen months ago when we feared we might have a triple the procession to having what is now the highest growth rate in the g7. we feel that it is going in the right direction. deficit is down. unemployment at a record low. more people at work than ever before. with growth rates which are much better than the average. but we want to move ahead. we attach in arm is important to

the european union and teaming to reform itself, becoming more competitive, so it is a more attractive place for foreign investment so that our enterprises are better able to compete in the world economy. needs ofrelates to the europe, not just the eurozone. we want to support the eurozone and want it to succeed. does that mean changing the rules of the game? strengthening the eurozone, that is fine by us. >> excellent. say, very express -- very impressive statement. very articulate. hopeny ways, many of us for a strong european union and also the u.s., and if that vision works, it would be great. two more things then we will open it to the floor. if anybody wants to say something about the u.s. -- eu

-- the u.s.-eu relationship, anne mentioned it, but will it be harder now? the other thing i wanted to ask -- if there is one person who came out hugely successful, it is the italian prime minister. his party is now going to have the second largest group in the european parliament. nobody has had that kind of percentage victory for decades. the center right opposition position, difference in percentage, 25 points. he gives the message in jeans -- peter, yout

couldn't saying it less austerity, but more reform. is anmments, because it extraordinary victory. how long we will see, but i do not think one can comment on the last few weeks without noting this really very impressive performance of a young center-left politician, and i am sure -- i do not know what you think. >> we see the benefits of having a prime minister like matteo renzi. -- thatgs of votes brings votes on election day. in france, the political situation during the last years was on the opposite track. he was able to reverse the movement -- i do not think so,

he has made in order to allow the president to remain the boss. ift can happen is when and -- was able to find some personal rumor from everywhere and sketched the political renzi, that is not unfeasible. he becomes indispensable to the president and he gets much more power by threatening to resign, because this would mean the end of this presidency. we are in this position. we do not know because it is only two months. is already one electoral defeat. we will see. >> thank you. watching all these politics, how do you sense the renizi vote?enon, 41% of the

>> i think he lost a lot of people, support, because he has been -- in the press and does not stand up and is not constructive. renzi, an astute politician, and did very well, but he has not agreed deal of experience. we will have to see how he dealt up these policies he will state and whether he is capable of doing it. the italian electorate is fickle . less -- moreess austerity, or reform? what can he do? italy facts remain that has major challenges forward. debt is extremely high.

1/4 of the eurozone debt is in italy. on a weekly that basis is a major challenge, of maine -- so maintaining market access is important. primaryo run a sizable surplus and one that they have been successful in recent years, but not as high as they had , and the reform agenda, potential growth in italy is extremely low. the reform agenda to increase that potential growth has to encompass both later market reforms, which are difficult to deliver, he even that constituency of the prime minister, and services reform, otherin italy lags

countries, for instance, spain. he needs the support and he needs the political hacking to be able to deliver a very challenging agenda, so we are only at the beginning of the road in that. >> peter? >> a brief. -- a brief comment. we do not have a choice but to apply austerity to our public finances. if we had not taken visible action to reassure the markets, our borrowing costs would've gone through the roof. the markets were going to watch carefully what we had to do. we felt we had to do that. at the same time what we did was try to balance that policy of getting public finances under control, bringing down public debt, with an expensive policy in terms of more pro-business policy, encouraging investment. since the present british

government came into power in 2010, we have shed 600,000 jobs in the public sector. we are going toward growth in the private sector. think when you talk about less austerity you need to think about the economy as a whole and see whether there are ways to do it austerity and whether you can balance austerity in the public expansiveh a more policy encouraging the private sector to take up slack. we have not given enough credit to the bank said. we would like to see more role of the financial sector. we are going in the right direction. the second thing i would just add is that as we look at reform, yes, i said just now why i think the european union needs to do much more in form, and hezi has spoken what thinks. more free trade between europe

and the united states of america. half the world's gdp between us. that will consolidate the recovery and it is a pretty well win-win. more jobs and more trade in both directions across the atlantic. on both points -- i do austerity, growth, not think anyone is in better place to talk about austerity than we in ireland. in those years we took 80% of our gdp to a combination of cutbacks and expenditures in addition to taxes. we see the benefit. the economy is coming through. we can't take you through all the commercials to how well ireland is doing. no question that we are coming through in good shape. but we still have our election results, that the austerity is

clearly there. despite the positive indicators, aowth creators, it sends clear message to the government that we need to soften the edges a bit of austerity. i think you saw that message more widely across europe. he asked about the italian prime get into and i want to the details. --hink it is very probably he was lucky in his main opponents. rightlyd peter so quoted all of these elegant statements from all these leaders and they go in the same direction. we got to be more intelligent. less red tape, etc. the problem is that it is so easy to say these things. tough to do it. when i came in ambassador to the

be the representative in brussels and 2001, the excitement of the declaration and everything that followed that, the constitutional convention come it was the same challenge we were trying to prevent. we have got to connect that and we've got to be more relevant, reached the citizens, and we wrote the script essentially back then and we are still trying to actually find ways to do it that can bring all the member states along. there is no difficulty. we can always stand up and give speeches about ideally the way europe needs to go forward. this and that and so on. but actually the challenge for us to do it this time is what is so huge. reecho's let me peter's plug on that. there may be some short-term complications.

t-tip, it is the response to that the question, how we try to challenge globalization, and the u.s. and europe had huge responsibilities there, because a win-win t tip that is fair and balanced, it is riding the tiger of globalization. that is what is needed. an intelligent, fair, balanced tipnt is part -- balanced t is part of the answer. >> thank you. questions and to answers. it will not be one question that needs answers, but a few points, and then we will try to make it as interactive as possible. i will start with you, and could you please identify yourself so everybody knows -- senior vice president at the

german marshall fund. thank you for organizing this panel. two questions. one of the great successes of the european union has been in large meant. heralded over these past years, we are celebrating 10 years of the big bang, and the question is what do these questions mean in terms of the future of the largment, a core part of geographical europe that is not geographically integrate it. we will seek peer addressing the conveyor belt of the process, so we are not expecting members until 2020, and we will have members saying no to an large meant because that is what the public wanted to hear? the second part, a ukraine. has ukraine been a wake-up call like elections have been?

geopolitics for many of us, we know it was never out. some they thought it was pushed to the side. will this lead to a more inserted european security policy? thank you. thanks. thank you for this rate conference. aspect, theical major initiative for europe within the euro zone this year is banking union. a fairly straightforward but, located question i think, which is, the motivation for making the unit in part was to address of thecalled -- relationship between sovereigns and the banks that held their debt and the potential risk. he do not hear about that anymore. i believe that sovereigns, banks within the euro zone, own as

much if not more of sovereign debt as they did at the beginning of the crisis. the question, a straightforward run, under crd4, sovereigns are treated as riskless assets, and the supervisory mechanism in the most recent note, they have said that is not the case. they should be treated as risk-weighted assets. when you are addressing the banking union, the relationship between sovereigns and tanks, our sovereigns riskless or not? >> thanks. two more.ke >> brookings. i wanted to come back to the leadership -- >> and former u.s. dignity trade representative. people should know. >> right. i wanted to come back to the leadership question that we started with, because i think it is critical for dealing with a whole host of challenges of the

u.s. and europe and a lot of our other partners are facing. going into the election, it was anticipated that the far right and far left would make gains. i do not think the result was unexpected. at the same time the concert that i saw was not that we did emergew who was going to as the likely candidate for the presidency, but that there was no consensus on how that person, he or she, would be chosen. so member states have said we can't read the lisbon treaty. it is our decision to make. evers of parliament have said, no, it is the will of the people as expressed in the election. constructive, what is the constructive way forward, and how soon do you think this question can be resolved so we do not have a situation of a lame duck commission, we do not of the councilt ashton'sign minister,

successor, to take terribly long? thank you. >> thank you. i want to add the information that according to the new agreement or treaty, i am always a little bit not quite up to date, but yesterday i read a piece that said that the president of the commission, which was not the case before, actually had to also agree to the appointment of every commissioner. in the past it was the council appointing president and the commissioners. now it is the council appoints the president, of course, has a lot of influence that gets nominated, but the president has the additional power of having to sign off on the members. what that means in practice we will see. the last question for this round, and then we will have a next round. >> euro news in washington. successful will a referendum have on your going

forward? >> what do you mean by successful? [laughter] well, in the eyes of the independent -- wasy the way, when ann talking about getting things done, and reminded me of a rather well-known phrase, we all know what to do, but we know not how to get elected to do it. now he seems to have kind of gotten elected, but anyway it was one of those famous sentences that was rendered last year. maybe first on the whole enlargement issue, and i have to be grateful to my friend from serbia who mentions turkey. mean, i do noti argement is imminent at this point. the last thing people want to hear at this point.

abd ukraine, balkans, we do not have time to get into the turkish question, although peter is one of the world specialists on that. how will all this affect the whole enlargement debate? is it the dead or is there some hope? >> a tiny fraction of it. some of the question is already underway, and that machinery is already in motion. if i'm correct, serbia, montenegro who in the wings to join. it is the other states who are waiting left side these pre-agreement that will have to wait a long time. e i've spoken to people in the say kinstitutions that you cannotu really expect another way followingma serbia and montenegro joining. there will be a while before that begins. posted because of peace concerns over the economy, freedom of movement. about bulb talked

area joining -- bulk area during. these issues will have to be resolved to some degree and there will need to be an open debate before that process will continue as it has done in the past. that is my take. >> on the ukraine, to what extent does the ukraine crisis call for and to what extent does it decrease the kind of rusher to have more -- the kind of pressure to have more security policy? >> i think the agenda is still there. some candidates in the pipeline. there are others waiting longer. turkey has been a little bit leapfrogged unfortunately but others who moved to more rapidly in that direction. we take the view that enlargement is one of the great policy successes of the

union. think that is the right direction to travel. it will perhaps take a bit of -- at the moment. we knew there would be a large wave of enlargement. some answers interest about immigration, free movement of labor, population, i think has discounted,not take but perhaps exaggerated. we have all heard over many years that there are great fears that if you bring in a relatively poor member state that the economies of the more prosperous ones are going to be flooded with people seeking better paying jobs. theembership tends to find salary levels to rise to meet

something resembling a european average, if you like, then people have been happy to go back to their own economies. blair hasmething tony been saying in a speech earlier today. concernedget over about that. i think moving ahead with enlargement is something we would favor. member to the relative state candidates beat the criteria for membership. we are not going to be able to break rules or anything else. nobody is suggesting that. does the ukraine crisis change that? ukraine is sui generis. there has been endless talk about whether ukraine should or should not be allowed to apply for nato membership. think ukraine is a case a bit apart and needs to be dealt with with particular sensitivity. are we going to see more cfsp?

crisesends more on the that we have to address. i would like to think that the european union in partnership with the united states has made a pretty decent job when you consider what we have been dealing with and the case which we have had to deal with. i may be perhaps naïve to think that the worst is behind us. nothing can be taken for granted. i think the response of the united states and the european union has shown that the european union can do its job and can make a stand on very important issues and produce a pretty much united view, even when there are different levels of economic and gratian and dependence on oil and gas from russia and all the comics issues which were part of it. i think it has been a reminder we need to have an effect of foreign security policy. cathy ashton and her team have been deeply involved in that and they are deeply involved in the iran issue, making sure it

resolves to the question whether or not the iranians are going to have a lee terry weapons, which we do not wish, and that is a key part of it. i think we will be moving forward and that direction when international crises ricard. european union has not been able to make much of an impact on things like syria and the difficulties there. in there are other countries that part of the world, middle east, beyond, which clearly need a great a little support from european member states. i think that will remain a high priority for the government. not sure it won't mean a sudden dramatic federation in this part of eu activity. i suspect what happens in the coming months is we will deal with the search for the top jobs, who will get what slot, and we will try to consolidate the fragile recovery that we are now beginning to witness and dealing with the applications in

the pipeline that are already there from countries, rather seekinghing off additional challenges, except where there is no response, but to tractors onto a new crisis. >> maybe just one point. for me, what is surprising is maybe not that well known and many quick reactions to that, but it seems to be quite strong interaction, links, some degree of support between vladimir putin's moscow and some of the extreme euro skeptic parties. the head of the ball bearing in -- bulgarian campaign launched his campaign from moscow with some racist statements. think,and others, i expressed admiration for putin

and so on. -- somewhatething new there. in the old days when the soviet union was supporting the communist parties in europe, there was something similar. do you see any kind of russian-backed extremism? >> i think that is highly improbable, because i could not think of having any extensive appeal within the european union. he always have in the course of election campaigns some highly erratic, unpredictable aspects, but i really do not think that there is the space within the european union to take off in any significant or meaningful way. za, in terms of aggression and anything you else you might

want to address, but this issue that monetary policy by nature requires a market for a deep risk-free assets. what- letme answer-that question and >> i will come back eastern europe. >>is interesting in terms of progress in europe. didterm balancing union not exist three years ago. we used it in the first time in our europe consultation in 2012, and it is amazing how far things have moved on that front. in terms of banking union, we have always talked about three strands of it. the single supervisor, a single resolution, and some form of risk sharing. i think on the first of those there has clearly been progress. faster than people have

be ated -- is going to supervisor and the process for that is an array. on single resolution, there has been progress, but perhaps not as much and not as the as some like us have been advocating. but there is some progress, and that is probably where there is least progress in terms of backstop and risk sharing, and that is where what is in the interest of the union and what is politically acceptable nationally becomes in conflict. is that one of those strands precisely what you mentioned, is the link between sovereign and the banks. troublesome very during times of stress, and of course those times of stress have passed, and so the urgency despite the generation -- the declaration in 2012, that there

progress ifcient there is a recurrence of stress. in terms of what you mentioned whether sovereign paper is risk free or not come if you ask any sovereign, of course they will tell you it is risk free. supervisor like the ecb that looks at balance sheets of banks, when they stress that balance sheet, it is legitimate for them to make assumptions about what that a per is under stress and not valued and is risk free. it is understandable the ecb would use that. let me come back in terms of eastern europe. i think when the dust settles, everyone will realize that and rgment hast -- enla been in the interest of new member states and existing

members. take the case of poland and ukraine. you mentioned ukraine. they started at the same level post the fall of the berlin wall, and we know where poland is and we know where ukraine is now, vastly part. the difference has been of course the european process of integration has generated democratic reform, but also major economic reform. has also been in the benefit of core of your, the enhancedpply chain is by what poland has to offer. so i think -- now, it is it going to be more equal moving forward? some of the potential members have a long way to go in terms of reforms. bet buy that nature, it will more difficult. let us not forget in the middle

of the crisis, the eurozone expanded. they brought latvia into the we now have the window coming into the zone that looks likely to be successful. so i very much hope that the momentum for integration, within the eurozone itself are the greater european union, will continue. thank you. >> do you see some kind of neutralized -- mutuallized european debt in the next five years? >> i very well understand that germany did not want anything about eurozones. germany went out the [indiscernible] they were not willing to do the same with other sovereign countries. i always said to my french , but suggesting to

make that as a discussion point. -- it could have thected in order to improve fiscal governance of eurozone. it is not perfect, and in particular i support about the differentiation of targets between countries. [indiscernible] at one moment in time in the future, the question will be raised again, and at that moment of time, the question of the eurozone will be raised again, and at that moment it will be difficult for germany to say we definitely do not want even in a better fiscal framework to be integrated in this sort of rezat, and also what

suggested, the creation of a unified and unified -- and liquid capital market. i am not negative on that money for one reason, because -- portland, i know the germans who were at the beginning extremely ee the fullo sav complexity of the crisis, do not work in a -- much better than the french. the.on that point, -- the first altar congressional proposal, the scheme from germany, the comes from an advisor. i think sometimes in the visible future it could come back to the table. >> anyone? >> i just made a quick answer to your question there. i wanted to say just a word about enlargement.

not that i disagree with any of the words of the colleagues. we should think that not be allowing ourselves to be kind of group in the performance ofdivision or lack of vision what is a small minority. the most minorities in europe, were brought into the member states. abovee we were rising u the small print in brussels, and we celebrated this across your. for our young people i think, who are not necessarily trapped in the same fears that some of the older people, about immigration, job loss,. it is a rational and vision for europe that make sense. yes to the cost-sharing and the carefulness of that. if you'reeurope -- has to be communicated as something to believe in, don't let us ever forget that this goes to the heart of europe

values and what we can believe in. much and forvery the stoke went statement. on the macro economics, let me state the numbers. i'm not sure of the u.k. ones. it is kind of interesting that the u.s. has an unemployment rate a little bit over 6%, and it carries a deficit in the balance of payments of about months.lion the last 12 eurozone has an unemployment rate close on average -- there are these huge differences ash of 13%, but a surplus that has 20 billion, so it is a little bit strange, to have such huge unemployment with such a huge service. you would think there is some space here for expansion. china, who knows what the unemployment rate is, but the current account surplus has 00runk quite a bit below $2

billion. in u.k., the current account billion, very0 large, and the unemployment rate is six point five percent. and japan who is now in balance now, an unemployment rate of about 6%. it is interesting to keep that in mind. but i find the eurozone number particularly interesting, because -- and this surplus is growing, not shrinking. anyway, that is just an aside. what i would suggest is that we keep the question for the and for the last round because it is a question of what done totively can be resolve the institutional issue and then you can add whatever else, but before we do that we take one or two more questions. there is this young gentleman later,o asked -- you,

and then we just have time for three, or we will see how quick they are. i, inside u.s. trade. in light of the recent parliamentary elections, there has been a growing concern about how t tip is going t forward. it was mentioned there are going to be some short-term complications. i was wondering if you could expound on that a little bit. >> short-term? >> yes. >> short-term competitions. >> and there is also talk about a turnaround in market sentiment, and i would like to know if those would have any lasting effect on the direction of negotiations. . >> ok, yes, as quickly and concisely as possible. with regardrom -- to the legitimacy, and the question of debt. debt is a false choice according

to robert rubin. the question is [indiscernible] i apologize [indiscernible] is not conclusive on that issue between debt and growth if we wish to start [indiscernible] unfortunately, that just does not add up. weterms of the an argument, have to have a quality of debt, what is the useful, what are the implications? 2002, 2005, france and germany but germany uses reforms.finance the france uses the money to consume. mind, question, he began -- if you do not mind, how do

you resolve the obligation to provide and support the economies? we have the frameworks. to report toca, congress, and, yes come in london, 1952, the german external debt, 50% written off. 1992,on of legitimacy, the debate between mitterrand and -- decided -- we won by a very small margin. in 2005, it was the resounding no to the question of the constitution. what did we have? in paris today you have to go -- listenedo, we were not pen.nd hence, thamadam le

>> sorry. you have to be very quick, huh, ok? in the back. people have talked positively about eastern europe, but there is a paradox here because the part dissipation rate it -- the participation rate is the worst. slovakia is just in the teens. i would be interested in getting your perspective and what is happening here. >> and then the gentleman in the very end. very brief, thank you very much. and please identify yourself. >> my name is michael birdseye. i have a strange question that involves the definition of the word job. in this country historically, my grandfather and his father's time, a job was six days out of seven and 10 hours a day.

and in my time, it is obviously five days and eight hours a day. as an american, it has been interesting watching europe. france for a while had a 35-hour workweek and sweden just recently as part of the civil service does a six-hour day. istability and politics, it important -- in stability and politics, it is important for the would have worked. is there hope of redefining this were job that we surround? >> very interesting question, actually. what we will do now is we will have a round. please address some of the last questions. we cannot take anymore russians, unfortunately. for ano give your view answer to miriam's question, briefly, of course, and you are free to me whenever you have to catch your plane. maybe what we will do is we will start with you so you have the chance of leaving, if you have to. >> ok, and thank you.

to for reasons of time and because of the greater expertise on some of these try to answer the questions. ip, i really want to send a positive message on t-tip and i said there may be some -- what i meant by that is it is going to take time for things to settle down in the european parliament, with the 30% of the euro skeptics, etc. debate andsome discussion from them about the winsdom of t-tip. there need to be reassuring discussions. i did not mean to suggest anything that would slow the momentum of t-tip in a significant way because we truly have to move forward. but some of the others come on

jobs and work and so on, i will not argue on paper. they need to be doing something worthwhile that is going to give them a living wage. see it.that is how they disappointed, of course, to see the very low turnout rates in countries like some walking out -- turnout rates in slovakia. question, it is obviously in russia respect -- it is obviously in retrospect about the lisbon treaty because it has allowed both sides to claim it is my way and give their own interpretations in the face of this ambiguity. i really hope and believe that it will be resolved in a mature way. the president of the european council has been tasked to take it forward to make soundings. he has not been given a deadline, but i think it is understood people wanting to proceed in an expeditious way,

because i think everybody understands to have this open-ended discussion it is just going to drag us down if a ghost too long. yes, it needs to be addressed seriously, and there needs to be time for that, but nobody is thinking this is dragging on for months and months. how to address it constructively, do not forget the should not forget there are three jobs in this package, three big jobs, but the normal things that mature people do, a, i will hope as i said at the beginning in the light of the election results that we look at the qualities that are required look at the individuals, the see what is ad mature way forward that is good for europe. i expect it will play out. my prime minister has -- but i think and i have seen this happening in europe, that, yes, people have articulated their

views and it is thought out, but in the end of the day i think there will be a coming together in the interests of europe going forward. thank you. >> thank you. you said something very important and i want to stress that one more time. a lot of what we are debating is way beyond europe, i think, is really how to manage globalization and international cooperation and global public goods, whether trade, climate. obama has taken a major initiative on power plant standards this week. i was with nick stern just last week. all the evidence is the climate change threat is more serious than people thought. it may be not an immediate threat tomorrow, but for the years, something needs seven. all this needs some kind of global cooperation and action. that is what you said? >> yes. >> europe is kind of an

experiment in post-world war ii transnational cooperation, and if it fails it will have tremendously negative impact everywhere else. to add, we-- i want are debating europe, but we are debating how to manage 21st century interdependencies, and i think that that is very important and have stressed it very forcefully in the beginning. i do not think the answers are easy. again?s the pole o'neill? all politics is local? tip o'neill? all politics is tremendously local, but there are many problems that have to be addressed globally. what are your last words of wisdom? >> just in terms of t-tip, in

europe there is a real -tip andsm towards t that might be played out in the parliament because the greens and they are-tip asking for a more open discussion about it. they do not take it is being held in closed doors. also skepticism toward t-tip negotiations. though i think it will go ahead. there's concern in europe that europe will be a loser in that, so that needs to be presented to europeans were clearly, that it will bewin-win for the u.s. and just a win for your. in terms of participation rate, in slovakia the participation rate was 13%, which was below. one of the reasons is you look at a lot of the countries in eastern europe, maybe they are not feeling the benefit of the

eu yet. romania is one of the poorest members of the eu. that is going to have to change feel fully fledged members of the eu. to feele not been made particularly welcome. there these factors that there is probably a certain amount of uisenchantment with the e on a level. in terms of candidates, i suppose we know that angela merkel is the one in the driving seat here, and she has found yourself between a rock and a hard place because whatever decision she makes it will not necessarily have a positive outcome. if she backs this, which he seems to be doing them a she has not -- maybe that will cause problems with david cameron who is trying to form a blocking minority who might be able to rally enough people to lock that, if that does push through.

wasas said david cameron blackmailing europe over the fact that he might force a british exit from europe. angela merkel will certainly not want to be the chancellor who was in power when britain left europe and was one of the driving forces forcing the disintegration of your. whatever happens it will be very difficult. another person, influential in if european parliament, said junker does not become the president, the council under aware because the parliament will become a nuclear explosive site, and they cannot expect any cooperation from the parliament. there will be a clash of institutions, despite the fact that there has not been -- he will try to avoid that. the constructive part, look at these super candidates. colleaguesbout -- my think it is necessarily could

happen, but she might be one of the super candidates who could override your discussions. >> [indiscernible] >> he could be a very good commission president. >> if you are getting into new speculations here. legitimacy and le pen. towo things. you have 51 persons that makes the decision. it is perfect legitimacy and it has a big concern since then. madam le pen, i would love that excessively [indiscernible] 4.8 million voters, and le pen two years ago,6.4 million.

it is not about the exclusion of the extreme right foot >> you mean at the presidentials? >> yes. every voter who was willing to vote [indiscernible] overemphasize that very idiosyncratic situation. situation, i came back from my state in this city, by using american comparisons. is ae question is t-tip difficult process. i would say that it will not be more difficult with the new parliament. job, redefining working hours, i'm comfortable.

[indiscernible] registering working time. a better way than what has been done with a 35 hours. this is in my political genes, and i think i think this could be heart of -- part of a new in-reaching social contract europe. finally, regarding the president, i share most of the views of -- the parliament [indiscernible] now to veto or track sapped the -- now to veto or accept the proposal of the council to nominate the president of the condition -- commission. i share the view that the heads of governments certainly want

this issue to be resolved relatively rapidly. the problem is they have cornered themselves. they are two things. the -- willads of be the natural candidates for and, second, we want to keep flexibility to nominate the president. these are contradictory. this was a prediction in m which mrs. merkel said last week. she said not exactly,w well, i have been committed to support junker. it is not a personal question. it is really an institutional question. a electoral

body like the parliament that will see this. as regards a super candidates, i do not. i always see the french people to be candidates like that. , ihink that the parliament have no reason to accept anyone from this electoral region. [indiscernible] they are excellent candidates, both of them, naturally. o nationald to institutions, and the best job for them is the head of the commission. >> let me answer the question and also touch on the jobs question. twohe that, there are separate issues.

it really depends on the ability of the country to finance its debt and the markets to its debt. that other countries get into trouble. feasibility is one issue. the impact on growth is another issue. if you look at a correlation of debt, you seed that high debt leads to lower investments. hence, so great. if you look at correlation of consumption of debt is high, consumers do not spend, so spending is low, growth is low. clear-cut andvery we have done a lot of work on this across countries, when debt investment reduces which is a major problem right now in your. investment levels are way low --

way low -- prices. in that sense addressing ththe debt issue, is important -- clarify.to when debt was high, investments would be high. now investment seems to be depressed despite in except crisis countries record low industry. >> when your balance sheet is encumbered, you have a very high debt, then even at low interest rates you may be concerned that you won't be able to save a profitable enterprise and you will not be investing. as a consumer, when you look at the demographics in europe, you may be concerned about your pension, your abilities consume later, and therefore withhold consumption in the short run. there is very clear relationship between growth and debt if you

break it down in different dimensions. on the jobs, what the questioner asked is very important. i think the issue is not a standard job that people to find. the world is changing. one may work for 15 hours or one may work for 30 hours. one may work for much longer. the issue is fox ability to do is flexibility to do that and the regulation that governs that. and the problem in europe is that flexibility goes -- both in terms of cost in terms of cost and regulation when it comes to contracts, are too rigid. and so you need to have that more flexible and of course it is difficult to do that when the protection and the cost of labor has been very high. liberalizing that is difficult, but you need that in order to create jobs. but what you also need at the

same time, and your is good at that, is social protection. so for taking the worker, not the position in a particular place. >> very true. i will not ask you about your views on the super candidates. >> thank you. >> peter? >> thank you. a couple of points on these russians. on the labor and the jobs, and what is a job as opposed to top jobs. needs is, what europe to have a properly flexible definition of labor market, which allow for a whole lot of changes the way people live their lives. even in my organization, the british foreign office, we see submission signed by two people who were joint heads of departments. they do three days week or 2 1/2 days a week, each at the start. 80% ofe who take the pay and work four days a

week. we're working in the direction of trying to adapt in flexible ways to what effort individuals want to do how much of their to spend want doing their job. we are not going to be fixed one terms of our employment practices. we are not going to be tracked all the talent we want when people have other requirements in their lives. it is fundamental, about regulation, and also about a culture about being more adaptable in terms of those of us who are the employers. second point i would make, and you will make me answer the candidate question, because i am not sure who else is qualified ---- not sure i am either how we're going to advance in the selection of these positions. we want to do this maturity, aste, want to get answers on consensual basis. that is for sure. let's not forget what the treaty says. the treaty says it is for accountable for the heads of government to -- to nominate a

candidate who has been voted upon by the european parliament. it's not the european parliament to tell the council what it wants. it is the other way around. people who have come through -- or whatever they want to be, there out there, they're out there, but i did not see the name of mr. junker or anybody else on the alice that were on -- on that ballots in other countries. we need to be clear what the roles are, what the treaty says, and in the heads of government will need to work out amongst themselves. that is what a sensible decision has to be to go and talk to the candidates, see what the options are, and come back with proposals for the heads of government to look at collectively, and then we will end up with some answers. others have said is not just one job, the president of the

commission. we also have the president of the council. he also have the fight president of the commission, and all the other key jobs, members of the commission, and within the coming months we will be able to find ourselves where everybody is content with outcomes. i will refrain from commenting on the names mentioned other than to say there are undoubtedly some outstandingly good french candidates whose names could be in the ring. other candidates as well. i will not go further than that. scotland's independence, there wil, what wt mean? there will be a referendum when people who live in scotland, not scots abroad, not english, irish, but those people who live in scotland above 16 will be invited to vote on whether or not scotland will become independent and separate itself from the united kingdom, an arrangement that has been intact

for 300 years. this is a pretty big deal actually for my country, and a lot of us are concerned about what the invocations might be. i government has my government has facilitated holding a referendum as a result of the election of a scottish nationalist majority in the local elections last time around in scotland in 2011 but the british government is not actually neutral. they are the principal opposition parties, taking the view that we would like the united kingdom to stay together and that is why you will hear scottish and also english and welsh and other business leaders in the u.k. expressing an opinion as to whether they do our do not want scotland to become independent. if there is a majority in favor of independence in september, then that is what will happen, and we wil