within the 30 days. is that a credible excuse? briefing thatate there was stonewalling of the senate -- i have heard this from both sides of the aisle. the white house continues to seem to change its story. it is interesting today that "time" magazine, the headline came out, more kidnappings to come after the deals. concern, they have released five hardened terrorists, and lots of concern expressed about that. it may put more americans at risk. go back to afghanistan, they go back into the fight as rock stars. so many of us on both sides of the aisle think this was a terrible idea.

if the president had gone to republicans and democrats in the senate, they would've heard the sound of no. theenator graham mentioned possibility of impeachment if this should happen again. custodye americans in around the world. some senators are indicating, maybe others could be released. if we see a similar type of prisons swap, shouldn't this be on the table? >> what i am going to say is that the administration needs to follow the law. what the administration did here with the release of these five hardened terrorists who i believe will go back into did not hear any classified briefing that would change my opinion on that -- it was a mistake in the president needs to follow the law in terms of coming to congress. >> you can see all of that interview with senator barrasso.

next, a discussion on the future of europe following the results of last month's european parliament elections. speakers included the british and irish ambassadors to the u.s. and a representative from the imf. by the brookings institution, this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> all 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. we have isabellele kumar who has

a flagship program, global conversation for euro news. she came all the way from london yesterday -- from paris, i'm sorry. isabelle, for those of you who watched her, but maybe not everybody has had a chance to, moderated 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. reza is the department director for europe at the ims. -- imf.

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. i had the pleasure and sometimes the tough time to negotiate with him when he was chief of the mission for the imf, but that was quite some time ago. there is my 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, so i kept

arguing with him what i should put in terms of description on the handouts. he was senior advisor to the reformist french prime minister and chief economist with private and public sector experience. he is one of the key organizers of the annual economist meeting which meets every year and brings together economists from around the world. then we have two very dear friends, the messenger of ireland in the ambassador of the united kingdom. ann anderson, i did not check on 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. to the u.n., too, to global affairs and now to washington. she reminded me that she also negotiated much more recently on

the irish program, but that is 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 exaggerate how he is a top figure of british and european diplomacy and really also a dear friend. thanks for being here. i attempt to hire some of them 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.

so i think this will be one of the topics we have to address, and i just 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 isabelle moderating these people -- and of course i will ask her what she thinks about it -- in the first ever really historical beyond borders political 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 candidates and leaders of countries. 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 seriously. 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 not matt brown, but i do not know, we will find out. he is another one of the leading people 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. it is above all nations was -- with shared ties of language, history, and political culture that democracy can live and breathe. at a european level, you cannot replicate the forms of democracy, elections and political parties, but you can't replicate the forms of democracy. but 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. i think this 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 interacted with believe, and a lot of the u.s. economists actually believe that you cannot have this happen without a much further degree of fiscal party coordination. not political federalism but something that comes pretty close to a pretty high degree of political federalism. of course, 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? i 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 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. ann, what 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. certainly it has been a very sobering election, no question about that.

maybe to your point about the outcome, personally, i think our participation rates were disappointing. when you have 43% voting, 57% people staying home, that points to a certain disconnect and apathy, which is a concern. secondly, i think we cannot forget that, in 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 insofar as the headlines, 30% of the vote went to the euro skeptics and populist parties and candidates.

i think there always has to be concern 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 and 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. -- enemy. europe is really not the target. europe is the lightning rod for a lot of this discontent. people feel that they are at the mercy of forces that they cannot control. obviously, the united states is not immune to that either. concerns are playing out among sectors of the population here. so i think it is something important transatlantically 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. european leaders are going to

have to take that into account. of course, the challenge is, how do you keep the necessary fiscal disciplines while softening the edges 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. the arguments as you laid them out are there on both sides, but i do think that this result is going to make the european leaders look, alternately, even more carefully at the qualities they are going to require in 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.

isabelle, you 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? >> as anne said, there were 28 campaigns going on 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 debate was intense and 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 eke 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 brought home some truths that europeans do not really know who is running. 43.1% 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 bothered to vote. 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, the presidential year and in the off year, averages to about the same as the european parliamentary election. and the off year when there is 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. >> of course the rates in national elections in europe are much higher. >> that is true. it is more politicized to some degree. jacques, 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 have going through a very serious crisis, but even germany in 2009 had a -5% or something like that growth rate. is there not economic recovery? how is the economics perceived, and how can you link the economic argument to the debate? >> thank you. in effect, eurozone went through 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. 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 political debates to get a credible and positive answer. the european council, they made -- [indiscernible] designed policy and institutional changes for the future.

ecb president mario draghi later talked about this political decision -- will do whatever it takes. there is the financial days are -- danger zone, moving towards a stronger integration. my guess is that it will work. but the other side, unemployment 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. against austerity in greece, definitely. [indiscernible]

interestingly enough, two-thirds of the populace everywhere want to keep the euro. two-thirds in greece, spain, france, and germany, among others. what about 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. let me be blunt but clear, they will prove much less experiential than, say, the tea party in washington. much more important by you is the democratic exercise we are witnessing with the choice of the president of the commission.

the pro-european parties unanimously agreed on the name of the parliament candidate, mr. junker. this approach has been -- [indiscernible] it would appear close to electoral fraud from mr. schulz. this will prove watershed in european politics.

in brussels, a wide pro-european majority that this parliament will exercise traction for a more integrated eurozone which is definitely needed. the pro-european parties, from 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. not as it has 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. that is the 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 design growth-oriented policies. there are challenges. but the views from brussels are clear. the eurozone is moving forward. >> thank you. that was a 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. reza, you are responsible for a 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, inflation 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. it is below 1%, almost getting close to zero, and nothing seems to be happening. >> thanks, kemal. thanks for the kind introduction. before i come to the story, let me endorse which you mentioned.

the turnaround in market sentiments in particular over the last two years is really remarkable. i would add one other dimension 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 and growth, what anne mentioned earlier. that is at the heart of the problems. and the unacceptable 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 fromcial strife emerging-market crisis or in earlier episodes of crisis in the world. but the sustainability of that requires job creation. it requires reducing unemployment. what jacques 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 easing in europe, and we had to create the room for reform to see potential growth. we need short-term growth to come 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 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 -- 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 banking systems are weak.

developing capital in europe is an urgent task to increase the availaability of credit and potential growth in the long run. the other point is an issue we 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 based 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.

>> looking at stocks, right? peter, your take on the latest events -- let me ask you a pointed question. i remember david cameron's very important speech which he gave in london. he gave a strong view on his 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 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 end 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 british political leadership as a whole, although not everybody, is quite fiercely opposed to further federalization or political integration in europe. when you take these two things -- on the one hand, yes, the eurozone has to integrate more, and we heard reza and jacques 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? >> thank you, kemal, for nice and easy questions. [laughter] i will not cover all the stuff 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 of countries, france, greece, a 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, my prime minister, said, we cannot just

shrug off these and carry on as if nothing has happened. we have to look at what this 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 call subsidiarity, allowing 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 call for a number of european governments, and it is an indication that europe needs to prepare itself better for the future, be more flexible, focus more focused 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 of my government for the future leaders of the european union institutions. we need people focused on the future and who can rise to the

challenges 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. there are two points the prime minister is making. first, we have as much interest in the eurozone succeeding as any member of the eurozone, of 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 this year 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 12%. we managed to half that since then, and we have restored our level of growth from 18 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 importance 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. all that relates to the needs of 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. i must say, very impressive statement. very articulate. in many ways, many of us hope

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 relationship, anne mentioned it, but will it be harder now? the other thing i wanted to ask is -- if there is one person who came out hugely successful from these elections, it is the italian prime minister. party is now going to have the second largest group in the european parliament.

no one has had that kind of percentage victory for decades. center-right opposition, the difference in percentage points, 25 percentage point difference, and he gives the message in jeans and shirts. part of it byted saying better europe, not necessarily more. less austerity, but more reform. it is an extraordinary victory. i don't think one can comment on the last few weeks without noting this very impressive performance of a young centerleft politician. >> we see the benefits of having was a vision.er

that brings votes on election day. therance, probably political situation during the last years of president aland -- the opposite track. is he able to reverse the movement? i don't think so. what can happen is when and if was able to [indiscernible] that's not unfeasible. in that case, he becomes indispensable to the president. [indiscernible]

we are in this position. we don't know. there is already one electoral defeat. we will see. how do you sense the almost 41% of the vote? >> in some respects, if you look at italian politics, he lost a lot of people's support because he has been derided in the press a lot. in came matteo renzi. is a very astute politician. he did well in florence. see how hee to builds up all these policies he is stating he will, and whether he will be capable of doing it. italian electorate, we will have to see what and who they put their support behind next.

>> less austerity, more reform? what can reza do? he gave a tax rebate to lower income families as a first step. the fact remains that italy has major challenges. the debt is extremely high. a quarter of the eurozone debt is in italy. the financing of that on a weekly basis is a major challenge. maintaining market access would be extremely important. high debt, he has to run a sizable primary set list. they have been successful in recent years, but not as high as they plan to do. agenda, potential growth in italy is extremely low.

the reform agenda to increase has totential growth encompass both labor market reforms, which are extremely difficult to deliver given the constituency of the prime reform,, and services which in italy lags other countries. needs the support, and he needs the political backing to be able to deliver a very challenging agenda. we are only at the beginning of the road. >> peter? >> less austerity, more reform. it depends what you mean by austerity. in our case, we did not have a choice but to apply austerity to our public finances. we had not taken visible action to reassure the markets, our borrowing costs would have gone through the roof.

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 and bringing down public debt. with an expensive policy in terms of more pro-business policies, encouraging the private sector to get going. have created more than 2 million jobs in the private sector. to move the growth towards the private sector, and take away the requirement on the public-sector to put too much money into the stimulus package us. about lesslk austerity, you need to look at the economy as a whole. we have not yet got enough credit from the banks yet. fromuld like to see more the financial sector in

promoting growth. i would justing add that as we look at reform, i have said just now why i think a european union needs to do more in terms of reform. that is how we are going to become more competitive and deal with some of the structural imbalances. more free trade between the european union and the united states of america, half the world's gdp between us, will make a difference and consolidate the recovery. moreis where we can get jobs and more trade in both directions across the atlantic. on both points. growth, i don't think anyone is in a special place to talk about austerity perhaps than us in ireland. in our program, we took 18% out of our gdp to a combination of

cutbacks and additional taxes. youave not got time to take through all the commercials for 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, growth creators, it sends a 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 minister, and i want to get into the details. i think it is very probably -- he was lucky in his main opponents. just -- and peter so rightly 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. it is so 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, 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. on ttip, let me re-echo's peter's plug on that. there may be some short-term complications. on ttip, 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 ttip that is fair and balanced, it is riding the tiger of globalization. that is what is needed. an intelligent, fair, balanced ttip is part of the answer. >> thank you. we will go now to questions and 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 -- a >> 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 enlargement. 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 enlargement, a core part of geographical europe that is not

geographically integrated. we will seek peers 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 great conference. a more technical aspect, the major initiative for europe within the euro zone this year is banking union. fairly straightforward but, located question i think, which is, the motivation for making

the unit in part was to address the so-called -- of the relationship between sovereigns and the banks that held their debt and the potential risk. we do not hear about that anymore. i believe that sovereigns, banks within the eurozone, own as much and 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 a banking union, the relationship between sovereigns and tanks, are sovereigns riskless or not? >> thanks. we will take two more. >> brookings. i wanted to come back to the leadership -- >> and former u.s. dignity trade

representative. and people should know. in >> right. an a i wanted to come back to her the leadership question that we started with, because i think is it is critical for dealing with a whole host of challenges and of the u.s. and europe and a a of the u.s. and europe and a lot of our other partners are like candy facing. a going into the election, it was anticipated that the far far as right and far left would make gains. i do not think the result was you unexpected. at the same time the concern

that i saw was not that we did not know who was going to emerge 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. members of parliament have said, no, it is the will of the people as expressed in the election. don't have a let's be constructive, what is the a 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 and will have a president of the council or a foreign minister, ashton's 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. what impact will a successful referendum have on your going forward? >> what do you mean by successful? [laughter] >> well, in the eyes of the independent -- oh >> by the way, when ann was 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 mentioned turkey. anyway, but -- i mean, i do not think enlargement is imminent at this point. the last thing people want to hear at this point. 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 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. i've spoken to people in the union institutions that say you cannot really expect another way following serbia and montenegro joining -- there will be a while before that begins -- because of peace concerns over

the economy, freedom of movement. britain has talked about bulgaria joining. 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 pressure to have more security policy? >> i think the agenda is still there. there's some candidates in the pipeline. there are others waiting longer. in turkey has been a little bit leapfrogged unfortunately, but others who moved to more rapidly you in that direction.

we take the view that enlargement is one of the great policy successes of the union. so we still 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 been discounted, 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. as membership tends to find the 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. this is something tony blair has been saying in a speech earlier today. let's not get overconcerned about that. i think moving ahead with enlargement is something we would favor. provide to the relative member 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 in that? who ukraine is sui generis. there has been endless talk about whether ukraine should or should not be allowed to apply for nato membership. i think ukraine is a case a bit apart and needs to be dealt with with particular sensitivity. are we going to see more cfsp? that spends more on the crises

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 independence on oil and gas from russia and all the 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 nuclear weapons, which we do not wish, and that is a key part of it. a i think we will be moving forward in that direction when you international crises -- european union has not been able to make much of an impact on things like syria and the difficulties there. and there are other countries in that part of the world, middle east, beyond, which clearly need is a great a little support from an 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 than rushing off seeking

additional challenges, except where there is no response, but to tack on to 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 bulgarian campaign launched his campaign from moscow with some racist statements. le pen and others, i think, expressed admiration for putin and so on. there is something somewhat 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? in >> i think that is highly improbable, because i could not think of it having any extensive appeal within the european union. we always have in the course of election campaigns some highly erratic, unpredictable

regrettable 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. >> reza, 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. >> let me answer that question and i will come back eastern europe. it is interesting in terms of progress in europe. the term "balancing union" did 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 expected -- is going to be a supervisor and the process for that is -- 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 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.

and that one of those strands is precisely what you mentioned, is the link between sovereign and the banks. that link is very troublesome during times of stress, and of course those times of stress have passed, and so the urgency despite the declaration in 2012, that there is not sufficient progress if 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. but a 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 paper 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 enlargment has 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 you of income post the fall of the berlin wall, and we know where poland is and we know where ukraine is now, for the most part. the difference has been of course the european process of integration has generated democratic reform, but also major economic reform. and it has also been in the benefit of core of european -- the german supply chain is enhanced 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 a of reforms. just by that nature, it will be more difficult. let us not forget in the middle of the crisis, the eurozone expanded. they brought latvia into the euro zone and we now have lithuania 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 mutualized european debt in the next five years? >> i very well understand that germany did not want anything about eurozone. germany went out the

[indiscernible] they were not willing to do the same with other sovereign countries. i always said to my french counterparts, but suggesting to make that as a discussion point. now, germany -- it could have expected in order to improve the 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 market, and also what reza suggested, the creation of a unified and liquid capital and market. i am not negative on that money for one reason, because -- i know the germans who were at the beginning extremely reluctant to see the full complexity of the crisis, do not work much better than the french. just on that point -- the first proposal, the scheme from germany, comes from an advisor. a i think sometimes in the visible future it could come in back to the table. a >> anyone? you >> 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. but i just think that we should not be allowing ourselves to be kind of group in the performance of division or lack of vision of what is a small minority. an in the most minorities in europe, were brought into the and member states. so once we were rising above the small print in brussels, and we celebrated this across europe. a for our young people i think, who are not necessarily trapped and in the same fears that some in of the older people, about immigration, job loss, it is a rational vision for europe that make sense. yes to the cost-sharing and the carefulness of that. but if europe 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. >> thank you very much and for the 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 $350 billion the last 12 months. eurozone has an unemployment rate close on average -- there are these huge differences among you countries -- of 13%, but a surplus that has now reached $320 billion, so it is a little bit strange, to have such huge and unemployment with such a huge surplus. you would think there is some space here for expansion. in china, who knows what the unemployment rate is, but the current account surplus has an shrunk quite a bit below $200 billion. in u.k., the current account deficit is $110 billion, very

large, and the unemployment rate is 6.5%. and japan who is now in balance now, an unemployment rate of about 6%. in it is interesting to keep that in mind. but i find the eurozone number in particularly interesting, because -- and this surplus is growing, not shrinking. anyway, that is just an aside. what i would suggest is that we as a keep the question for the end for the last round because it is a question of what constructively can be done to resolve the institutional issue is and then you can add whatever else, but before we do that we take one or two more questions. there is this young gentleman here who asked -- you, later, and then we just have time for

three, or we will see how quick they are. >> hi, inside u.s. trade. in light of the recent parliamentary elections, there has been a growing concern about how ttip is going forward. it was mentioned there are going to be some short-term complications. i was wondering if you could you 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 and of negotiations. >> ok, yes, as quickly and concisely as possible. >> question from -- with regard 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. in terms of the an argument, we have to have a quality of debt, what is the useful, what are the

implications? 2002, 2005, france and germany both -- but germany uses money to finance the reforms. france uses the money to consume. so the question, if you do not mind, how do you resolve the obligation to provide and support the economies? we have the frameworks. 1790 in america, to report to congress, and in london, 1952, the german external debt, 50% written off. question of legitimacy, 1992, the debate between mitterrand and -- someone 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 --

we said no, we were not listened to, and hence, madam le pen. >> 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 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.

>> 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. in stability and politics, it is important for the world to have work. is there hope of redefining "job"? >> 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 any more questions, unfortunately. but also give your view for an

answer to miriam's question, briefly, of course, and, ann, 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. are you >> ok, and thank you. i will not try to for reasons of time and because of the greater expertise on some of these try to answer the questions. ttip, i really want to send a positive message on ttip 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. we may see some debate and discussion from them about the wisdom of ttip. there need to be reassuring discussions. i did not mean to suggest anything that would slow the momentum of ttip in a significant way because we truly have to move forward. but some of the others, 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. i think that is how they see it. disappointed, of course, to see the very low turnout rates in countries like in slovakia. on miriam's question, 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. and 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 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 full election results that we look at the qualities that are required and look at the individuals, the three jobs, and see what is a 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. president 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 next 10, 20 years, something needs to be done. 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. so i think -- i want to add, we 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. what was the -- again? 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. isabelle, what are your last words of wisdom? >> just in terms of ttip, in europe there is a real skepticism towards ttip and that might be played out in the parliament because the greens are not for ttip and they are asking for a more open discussion about it. they do not take it is being held in closed doors. also skepticism toward ttip 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 more clearly, that it will be a win-win for the u.s. and just a win for europe. in terms of participation rate,

in slovakia the participation rate was 13%, which was low. 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. you romania is one of the poorest members of the eu. that is going to have to change before they feel fully fledged members of the eu. they have not been made to feel particularly welcome. there these factors that there is probably a certain amount of disenchantment with the eu 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 herself 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 she seems to be doing, 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. it was said david cameron was 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 europe. whatever happens it will be very difficult. another person, influential in the european parliament, said if junker does not become the president, the council is 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. we talked about -- my colleagues 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. >> first, about legitimacy and le pen. two things. democracy, 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

no one 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? >> you mean at the presidentials? >> yes. every voter who was willing to vote [indiscernible] do not overemphasize that very idiosyncratic situation. a difficult situation, i came back from my state and this city by using american comparisons. so the question is ttip is a 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. it is 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 part of a new far-reaching social contract in europe. finally, regarding the president, i share most of the views of -- the parliament [indiscernible] now to veto or accept the proposal of the council to nominate the president of the 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. first, the heads of the -- will be the natural candidates for the job, and, second, we want to keep flexibility to nominate the president.

you these are contradictory. this was a prediction in which mrs. merkel said last week -- she said not exactly, well, "i have been committed to support junker." it is not a personal question. it is really an institutional question.

there is a electoral body like the parliament that will see this. as regards super candidates, i do not. i always see the french people to be candidates like that. i think that the parliament, i have no reason to accept anyone from this electoral region. [indiscernible] they are excellent candidates,

both of them, naturally. with regard to national 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. on the that, there are two separate issues. it really depends on the ability of the country to finance its debt and the markets to accept that debt. other countries get into trouble. feasibility is one issue. the impact on growth is another issue. if you look at a correlation of investments and debt, you see that high debt leads to lower investments. hence, slow growth. in if you look at correlation of consumption of debt is high, consumers do not spend, so

spending is low, growth is low. it is i think very clear-cut and we have done a lot of work on this across countries, when debt is high, it reduces investment which is a major problem right now in europe. investment levels are way low -- way low -- prices. in that sense addressing the debt issue, is important -- >> to clarify. when debt was high, investments a 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 to 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. flexibility to do that and the regulation that governs that and the problem in europe is that flexibility -- 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 questions. on the labor and the jobs, and what is a job as opposed to top jobs. a obviously, what europe needs is 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. people who take 80% of 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 life they want to spend 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 to -- not sure i am either -- how we're going to advance in the selection of these positions. we want to do this maturity, haste, want to get answers on a 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 ballots in other countries. we need to be clear what the rules 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. we also have to find the right 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. and then, scotland's independence, what will that 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. my government has facilitated a the holding of the referendum as a result of the election of a scottish nationalist majority in the local elections last time around in scotland in 2011. in his neutral on the issue. the british government takes the view that we would like the united kingdom to stay together, and that is why you will hear scottish, but also english, welsh, other members of

parliament, political figures, business figures in the u.k. expressing an opinion as to whether they do or do not want scotland to become independent. majority in favor of independence on the 18th of september, that is what will happen, and we will all have to scurry around and make a whole lot of changes to an awful lot of things in the ways in which the united kingdom conducts its business. one of many questions that arises -- and there are a lot, about currency, foreign investment, nato commissions, pension rights, sovereign debt -- but there is also the question of european union membership. i think the minister of scotland has said he expects there to be a seamless transition to scottish membership of the european union. that is not what leaders of the european union have said. other political leaders have said that of scotland leaves the wants to join and

the european union, it will have to join -- have to take its place in the queue and applying like every other country. i would be surprised if all that got done in the entire process completed seamlessly in 18 months, but we will see. it is clear that there are some member states that are quite nervous about the idea of a member state fragmenting and bits of a member state reapplying for membership in the european union. but it is one of a number of quite complex questions that would arise if there were a favor -- a vote in favor of independence september. >> the cooperation between nation is still the main way one cooperates.

cooperation is not about to go away in europe, as we see. ofis the source of a lot democratic legitimacy because of the feeling of belonging, of identity, of the democratic mechanism with in the nationstates. but i do believe, and i think we had examples of that, that many ofues do require a degree cooperation between the nationstates and the degree of global citizenship or regional africa, for in example. africa could do much, much morer if there were integration in africa. so there is that issue. and i think we're struggling .ith it my own experience, if i could just share one thing, how person gets a particular job that is supernational -- and of course, the commission is much, much , an political as jack said

organization than the imf or the world bank, for example, but to some degree, there are bureaucracies that try to solve economic problems, that try to manage international or global cooperation, and so on, and there has to be a certain amount of legitimacy in the bureaucracy, which they often then have to be kind of hearst personalized, because in politics and media, things get very personalized with the person who is heading these organizations. so, i think, to view the appointment as peer really democratic, whether it is the -- as purely democratic, whether it is the commission or the head of the imf, is no longer appropriate for today's world. there have been figures such as

a technician who was not a political leader, ahead of the commission, but at the same time had a direct message to citizens and was accepted as such by citizens. and there are other examples one from other international institutions. i don'tny years ago -- want to go into current examples because it is kind of controversial, but despite the problems of the vietnam war, when mcnamara was the head of the world bank, he was addressing global citizens, so to speak. and leaders of the imf have done similarly. i think that element is important, and to somehow view purely,ooperation as purely a matter of national diplomacy's cooperating and working together, i think underestimates the degree of

need there is or a global or demos in a way. and of course we are very far from achieving it. thank you very much to all of you, the wonderful panel we have had. i hope you have enjoyed this. i hope brooking's is fulfilling its mission of ring in such discussions together, and please give around laplace tour panelists. -- applause to our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today in ukraine, the newly elected president was sworn in. hehis inaugural address, called on armed groups to lay down their weapons and promised amnesty to those who did not have blood on their hands during the country's ongoing conflict with neighboring russia.

he also declared the crimea is, was, and will be ukrainian in a show of defiance to russia's annexation of the territory in march. vice president biden was among the attendees of the inaugural ceremony and had a brief words with the incoming president, telling him there was a window for peace, but it would not stay open indefinitely. >> for over 35 years, c-span rings public affairs from washington directly to year, putting you in the room at hearings, events, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the center for strategic and

international studies recently hosted a forum on the treasury department's role in national security affairs. next, congresswoman jane harman and former nsa director keith alexander take art >> thank you very much. from "the newger york times." it is a great pleasure to be here. today will be about financial intelligence. it flows very nicely from what you heard from stewart and the first panel. we have a great panel of experts here. to my immediate left, you're right, michele flournoy, the secretary of policy at the pentagon for -- how many years? 3? seems to have plunged back in. jane harman,, who of