i also prefer being more of a policy maker than typical for his are and i like to maintain that. father'se day after day, have family issues been the biggest challenge? speaker ryan: no, i've always been hypervigilant about managing our schedule. nonnegotiableas a condition. most speakers are empty-nesters whose kids are gone. i can't do that. my other challenge was to make sure that we came together to reach consensus, an agenda together in a bottom-up, grassroots way, and then offering into the country. those are the two critical things i wanted to focus on as a part of host: paul ryan joining us on capitol hill. you for the time. >> thank you speaker, take care.

>> we do have an update on the orlando shooter transcript shooting. they released the full transcript by omar mateen after redacting references to the islamic state. to prevent the attack from being propaganda. less than a week before the u.k. referendum on membership in the european union, the heritage foundation has a discussion with margaret thatcher's former speechwriter, looking at how she might vote if she were alive today. this comes a week after joe cox was stabbed outside her constituency in england. [applause]

much andyou very welcome. pleasure toat introduce my very good friend mr. sullivan. i have known john for over 15 years and met him when i worked for lady thatcher's office in london. he is one of the most gifted conservative writers of his generation. he is responsible for crafting some of margaret thatcher's most powerful speeches. he joins us today to talk about margaret thatcher and brexit days before the historic british referendum on the membership to be held on june 23, next week. he served as special advisor to prime minister thatcher from 1986 to 1988. he assisted her in the composition of her best-selling memoir "[indiscernible] currently, he is editor of the

-- called -- quadrant magazine in australia and president of the downey institute free market transatlantic think tank in budapest, hungary. he is also a senior fellow at the institute and editor at large, or he served as chief for over one decade. in four decades, he was a writer and editor on both sides of the atlantic. john sunland -- john sullivan served in prague as editor of the foreign policy national interest and editor-in-chief on united press international. his book "the president, the pope and prime minister" was about the revival of western market. it has been published in seven languages. join me in welcoming john sullivan. [applause]

mr.sullivan: ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for inviting me today. and for giving me such a generous introduction. [indiscernible] you have given me a highly controversial topic, namely brexit. and next week's referendum. the trouble on that question has been briefly stilled in britain by jo cox, who was murdered yesterday in the most brutal and horrible fashion by one of her constituents, who was mentally disturbed and not some kind of critical fanatic. -- political fanatic. most of us here in this room were not sure of her politics, but she was very spirited, a funny opponent, a wife, mother and someone who had risen from the background and the first member of her family to go to college and to the anteroom of high political office.

we should mourn her passing and we should seek justice for the murder. all quarrels halt at the grave. we carry on disagreeing here. my topic is thatcher and brexit. a few months ago, it was almost the first battle of the referendum campaign and there was the question, what would maggie do? more precisely, how would maggie thatcher felt the next thursday's referendum? it was a quarrel between mrs. thatcher's former aide, friends of mine. but not household names outside of that small circle, but it was the well-informed debate. what is more interesting, even in the outcome is the fact that fully a quarter century after she left office, margaret thatcher is one of only two

postwar british prime minister churchill,s within whose role remain contested and important to a large number of british people because whatever other criticisms may be leveled and may be believed, both leaders aren't recognized universally to have had a visceral patriotism that made them love their country and fight harder for it the interest. no other prime ministers before or since inspired quite that same belief, and that is why people ask what would maggie do? i will return to that question in a few minutes, but to do so, i must first described the thatcher legacy of what is called thatcherism. if you want to understand the basic emotional drive of margaret thatcher, it is to be found in some words that she addressed to a television interviewer toward the close of the 1979 election campaign.

with the election campaign almost over, she felt able for a moment to let down her guard, and she exclaimed "i cannot bear fruit in decline. i just cannot bear it." that outburst was completely sincere and prophetic. thatcherism was designed to halt and reverse the decline of britain. margaret thatcher was a practical politician rather than a philosopher, and her legacy was the record and result of practical responses facing britain today. initially, reversing britain's decline was seen as are an economic term because the most obvious problem were economic ones. her remedies are cautious, flexible and responsive to those problems as they crossed the government's past. as far as they were routed -- rooted in ideology, they were

drawn from the anglo religion of economics. as was pointed out in a fine study, "the anatomy of thatcherism," it had been brought to first the both parties and was seen as a conservative as much as the classical liberal one. it was also an intellectually normal tradition with most of the problems facing the new government. above all, the most obvious rival sect of economic solutions, central democratic version, seemed to have come to the end of its tether. they were strikes that brought britain to a standstill in what became known as the winter of discontent. thatcherism had a strong claim to become a new, economic sense of following the implosion of postwar consensus economics, but that sure is -- but thatcherism was never purely economic set of

ideas. when britain interest is challenge from other directions, mrs. thatcher drew another -- on other relevant traditions, notably on the tradition of tough-minded national interest realism and liberal internationalism to justify what the patriotic purposes were of the day. moreover, thatcherized impulses, whether in economics work policy, were not the final determinants of policy. a fierce hatred was governed by a practical prudence and two central victories in the whiners war show that this is so. she did not expect or plan for an argentinian seizure of the

falklands, but politics of natural regeneration could hardly refuse such challenge. though she was annoyed by mediation efforts, she let them play out until the end and to calculated risks diplomatically. only after she had digested the best economic and diplomatic and military advice. at several points, she often concession to portal saris -- two buenos aires and populated that greater dangers of weighted [indiscernible] she maneuvered to victory as much as moving boldly. similarly, she threatened the miners union demands in 1981, when she was informed that britain had coal stocks to resist strikes, but she had once began the build up of coal stocks and other preparations to resist strikes that might come later. when it did come three years later, she defeated it.

these two outright political bit -- victories ran counter to the usual british politics of compromising and splitting the difference. together, with prominence and cold war diplomacy and success of economic policy, they established or domestic dominance, entrenched her economic and labor union reforms as a new consensus in british politics and elevated the international profile. in foreign affairs, mrs. thatcher personally played a crucial role in helping other western european governments to resist the proper peace -- powerful piece movement, thus getting u.s. stationed in southwestern europe. she brought together reagan toward ending the cold war peacefully at the various summits in the mid to late 1980's. thatcher was obviously subordinate partner in the

thatcher-reagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. given the relative size to the economies and militaries, it could hardly have been otherwise. she should also have been the junior partner in terms of economic influence, too. that she was not. it is mrs. thatcher who will be regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic reformer. by should that be so? in the first place, the recovery of the british economy in the 1980's was more in precedence -- impressive because it started a lower economic point and occurred in the more left-wing country. jimmy carter, who was good at ruining and economy, but he did not match the socialists who had been running britain for the postwar time, and this was harder position to overcome. she had to regulate the market and had to overcome resistance

from the west as well as from labor. finally, the reforms had major non-parliamentary challenges from the labor unions. once the miners were defeated, the british economy joined the american one in providing a demonstration effect of what free-market reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time. those administration effects are not identical. privatization was britain's. two, privatization turned out to be more important globally. it was a ready-made solution. when privatization succeeded, it was the most unlikely converts that took note. thatcher, even more than reagan,

posed the economic challenge to the soviet union. either former firm or behind the capitalist west. a comparison between the british economy after a decade of economics and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of communism was simply too embarrassing to ignore. once it was introduced, it very rapidly destroyed the communist system it was designed to save. once the economies of the soviet bloc collapsed in 1989, there was an extraordinary wasteland produced by state planning, and it was the thatcher model that the new democracy mainly sourced to emulate. thatcher, reagan [indiscernible] -- and hope john paul ii were all heroes in post-communist europe, but it was thatcher to whom the new economy ministers, such as czech slovakia and estonia, looked to as the model

of how to reform the bankrupt and socialist economy. they say as much. more subtly, the post-communist societies follow the thatcher model more quickly and their economies rose from the dead. it was not only in the post-communist world that margaret thatcher was seen as an inspiration. thatcherism had a good role in asia and africa, the reduction of trade and capital movements, they became the new conventional wisdom's and ministries of finance around the globe. their broad results of globalization has -- became the watchword of world bank's. -- and imf reports. there are other points of view much more critical of the thatcher legacy than you have heard for me. they argued that her economic policies simply failed.

it is undoubtedly true that errors were made in the thatcher years. it is hard to imagine any government that does not make some such errors, but they were far outweighed by the economic successes of thatcherism, noticeably a sustained rise in productivity. some successes were evident at the time for richard left britain as the world's fourth-largest economy. the general success continued through the major administration's right up to the 2008 financial crisis. chancellor in 1997, after the labor victory, graham -- gordon was given a treasury briefing and it was concluded on the economy with the words "these are wonderful figures,'to

which he replied, "what do you want me to do? send a thank you note?" they were not complete of her record. her privatization revolution had defeated the miners. reagan defeated communism. these were important and even if they had contributed nothing to economic improvement. it is simply not possible to persuade open-minded people that they are substantial failures or political disasters. the word labor and liberal democratic party's continued to dislike them but they did not

propose there repeal or rejection. the exception was most of the critics believe that it maintained a historical era that her party and the country would see in retrospect the nostalgia and should be left behind by history and britain when it is eventually embraced in the european future. until the last few months, it is split down the middle of whether the future are truly european. it looked as though her critics might be right. it is clear that this question is still an open one, and since her views will and do influence others, the referendum debate on what would maggie do began? it began when charles, now the lord of the water, -- the lord of bay water, argued that she would say vote yes in the brexit referendum.

charles was lady thatcher's closest collaborator on foreign policy. thatcloseness is indicated they were the only other guest at the dinner party and sir dennis gave to the president and mrs. reagan. they were six people around that table. he remained a close and devoted friend to lady thatcher until the day of her death. he was the last friend to see her. i think his opinion demands respect. so does the opinion of probably harass -- depending of robin harris. he was an advisor to mrs. archer, ahead of the conservative research department and before that, one who helped

with their biography, as i did, and has helped with the state and helped her with her final book. he declares adamantly "i know that margaret would have fought for brexit with all of her strength. it was seconded by a former administer in thatcher's cabinet. the judgment was succumbed by a more politically substantial one. also, i recall by you. weighing in from the sidelines was charles moore, the distinguished most recent biographer. he did not speculate usually on what margaret thatcher would

have done about issues that took place after her debt, but he concludes that in the end she is firmly but privately embracing brexit by the end of her public life. this is a distinguished list of magnificos. who is right? i customarily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. thatcher would have done about the iraq war, brexit or anything else. it is impossible to know what someone would have done before their death because for the simple reason that the deceased under no circumstances know what the event takes place. have a political principle is in discriminating color and discriminated establishing color and effect. the circumstances i what every political game, either beneficial or noxious, to mankind. in this case, charles would argue that what david cameron brought back with britain's

relationship with europe were a real improvement in the european union. equally, robin harris would respond to these that they are so trivial that they do not only failed to render the european union less of noxious to britain, but they would lead to lady thatcher for her book to this -- for her desire to vote to leave. is given all the facts of the case, and when that happens, we bring all her personal biases to making sets judgments and we risk putting our opinions on the deceased great that said, we need not observe the stricter standards in such policies in the interest of reaching the common sense verdict.

to do that plausibly, we must test the reasons that these well-informed and intelligent people get for holding such opposing views. robin harris and his side basically stated that in her last book in her last book indication of public speeches and private conversations criticizing the european union. they criticized federal ambitions and the direction of travel. some of her public statements noted withdrawal from the eu. private andther in told a number of people that she wanted to withdraw. charles did not deny this but argued that there were effectively two thatchers who feared back-and-forth between her rhetoric and irrational decisions.

he says she could be as harsh as the european skeptic and "would settle for the best in what she could get in european negotiations." there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in the picture that charles paints. i was in the room on a few occasions when she did that. she was blowing off steam at the antics of british and european partners. what she had to concede and sometimes would concede later that she made a mistake. he did not also believe that he would not be able to work with a similar deal with her on this occasion to sustain europe on better terms.

that said, which version is closer to a dispassionate reality? that suggests three criteria. there were occasions when mrs. thatcher conceded later in public that they were cautious, well calculated and reflected in the attended policy. from her last year in office, until she left public life, her speeches on the european union were almost critical and -- on security into domestic policy and on the weakening of national sovereignty. here is an excerpt from a speech she gave to the congress of prague in 1996 -- "the overall european federalist project, which was envisaged by some from the start, but which is only in recent years come out into the open, is in truth a nightmare." from her book -- "that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building the european superstate was ever embarked on

would seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era, and that britain with traditional strengths in global destiny should ever have been part of it will appear to be a political error of historic magnitude." i think it is hard to accept that this consistent line of argument in more than a decade was the case of blowing off steam that she would discard sec -- would discard, and secondly, although she did change of mind, she did not zigzag on europe and go back and forth in policy terms. there is a clear trajectory in her career that takes it from being unenthusiastic endorser of

you can membership in the 1975 referendum through growing and to her latest criticisms. she moved erratically but consistently in the europe direction and there is no proof of a move in the direction later. charles is right in saying that she made the groundwork for making the european union more habitable institution for the british union. rebateained a financial for the u.k. cost excessive payment to brussels. big gave stillat more sovereignty to brussels. it is hard to imagine her voting for a european order that means that sovereignty rest with the european court of justice rather than at westminster. the only way to remedy this is with brexit, all of which inclines me to the robin harris side of the argument. it seems to be obvious that the

woman who said "i cannot stand britain in decline, i cannot just stand it," would be appalled by the campaign -- i am -- the basis in the case or the eu that in arguments that britain's fifth-largest economy in the world, thanks to her, is too small and feeble to exist outside of the german rhine. i'm already on the brexit side of the argument, so we must keep the theme of bias of my own views. let me try to go deeper into thatcherism rather than consider what mrs. thatcher as a political leader would have said. in her important study of thatcherism, it is argued that thatcherism drew more broadly on the distinctive english morality and in philosophically some -- sophisticated books, she argues that since medieval times

, it is distinguished between reason and the passions. reason should be invested in a government powerful enough to control the unruly patrons of its citizens. the english however have developed a different view of but is integrated with them in a single faculty. reason is a faculty that enables human beings to interpret and respond to experience as they well. people power that allows to choose differently from others and what they did yesterday. so an individual is neither a mechanical effect of later causes or a plaything of his or her unruly passions. this is what she writes. in this picture then, a human

facultiesssed of its is both potter and clay. what tosarily decides make of whatever happens to him. social and political institutions should not be there permanent guardians, imposing order on them against their desires, but enable them to make their choices without bumping into one another, allowing them the maximum freedom in doing so. she believes that thatcherism is the recovery of this almost lost social vision. she doesn't believe that mrs. thatcher herself had arrived at the same vision self-consciously , indeed she knows she has not. she intuits that mrs. thatcher,

and part, because she was provincial england at heart, had held fast to the remnants of this traditional morality when it was retreating before the advance of status and socialist ideas in the metropolis. ms. thatcher on this view was like a -- finger, unable to read a note of music but able to hold a tune, hold -- sung sang song from her youth. they see things a as they want silent. hence the surprisingly swift revival of england's vigorous virtues, and latent enterprise. the swift recovery of british industry once it had been given thatcher like freedom -- freedom . one need not shared this

entire analysis in order to see the recovery of those forgotten songs. they are and on the theoretical spirit of individuality, both liberal and conservative, but patriotic and open-minded that once encompassed all english people and across both parties. now, they mark a new division between those who still resonate to this older spirit liberalism of europe. you have thought my argument and conflict to be abstract, and i sympathize. consider this. the founders of the european union explicitly justify their new political order as a means for preventing their peoples from following that pattern into

conflict. that is why they have deprived them of democratic institutions that we in this country tend to take for granted. and yet, inevitably given the paradoxes of history, it is the european successes to those founding fathers who now aggravate national, flights by their own unruly passions for uniformity in the case of the euro and other institutions. that was of course, mrs. badger's last battle. -- mrs. satcher's last battle. she took time to do so. as a practical politician the more she encompasses the european union, the more suspicious she became.

it seemed to her to concentrate the centralizing and leveling passions and sensitive both of the sovereignty and aspirations of citizens. she believed it simply did not suit the british. on this issue, she will prove to be either head of her party or behind history. the brexit does occur might be a new phase of english history. in the style from elizabethan england, or to a renewed closeness of the countries of the anglo sphere in the world. if it remains in your, she will seem to be behind history.

thatcherism will look like a glorious last stand i liberal england. in my view, in either event she will have deserved well the people she governed for 11 years. without her, it would not be having any choice in the matter. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very those beautifully crafted remarks. really insightful. i would like to ask you an opening question. with regard to the impact of exit, -- brexit, how do you see

britain post brexit shaping the relationship, and could you comment on president obama's intervention where he worn the british people against leaving the you -- the european union. >> in the british vote for brexit, that will start the process. it will start the change. there will be two years negotiating a new relationship between britain and europe. i think that will be accomplished much more easily, then president obama has argued. britain's largest market for the goods and services for the rest of europe. it is not in anyone's interest

that there should be a kind of trade war, and both sides will act rationally once the shock is over. so suppose the british don't reach an agreement on an entry into the sickle market, that does not mean that trade will stop. most of the world is not a member of the european market. if america traits more with the eu countries then does britain, exports more to them. i think there will be a. of rational reconsideration of the best deal that both sides can get. i think it will be a better

outcome for both. when of the disadvantages the british has had in europe is they were always objecting to will most of what the other european countries wanted to do. they can be reasonable from the british stand point. we are much more critical of regulation, want a much rear economy than the rest of europe. i think the best way to deal with those question is through jurisdictional competition, we see which works out best when those countries compete. i think we will be moving to that when -- if we leave the eu through brexit. that will promise to be massive change. in the long run, i think the british will tend to look first at the countries now known as the anglosphere. one of those countries will be america. some of the early arrangements will be with canada, australia and new zealand. he has developed some right to

go detailed plans which are available online, and i recommend them to all of you. i'd believe that without having james technical knowledge here, i believe there will be and relatively easy development of close relationships, which were severed by the british to send -- decision to enter the european -- in the 60's and 1970's. the special relationship will play its part, but it will be the only relationship. there will be a slight nervousness at the beginning and the ministers in the cabinet, and seeming to rush to be america's best friend, because at the moment, the special relationship in england is the -- suffering a decline. i think we need to work on that. they will be looking at other

members of the anglosphere family. then they will feel there a strong position to approach the u.s. with some suggestions are in >> i'd like to invite questions from europeans. please identify yourself and any institutional affiliation you may have when you ask a question. >> national strategic studies association. you make the point that leaving the eu is not the same as leaving europe. what do you feel the outcome will be and what you make of the few -- of the view that it should remain in the eu? >> the tragic death of joe caulks- c has brought all of the discussionox, to a halt -- halt. maybe it will have some effects,

turnout for example, producing a sentimental vote, and maybe -- i haven't got the latest news -- but the murderer seems to have a connection with the fanatical group. if that is a case, it will be a disadvantage for the brexit side. these things happen. i cannot predict the outcome. i would have said last week that brexit seems likely to win, because the momentum is towards it, and because the campaigns has been a failure. they have lost the battle in that sense. what will happen as a result, whether it is just or now,

whether it remains or goes, the european debate has been transformed in british politics. we now know that people who want to leave the european union are half of the population. it may be 48%, or 52%, they won't fall below 40%. it won't go above 60%. you cannot have half of the publication -- population believing something with the rest of the structure, the major parties, the bbc, the media acting as if they are a small handful of cranks. the european debate has been transformed in britain, and that is a permanent change. it will have to be reflected in the conservative party. one interesting point about this. it is being conducted entirely within the conservative party.

the other parties just haven't got it. they haven't counted because -- people thought they were uniformly committed to remaining within. but that's not quite true. it contains a lot of people who want to leave here they are discovering this. some of these people moved to brexit. u.k. itself is a part of the british structure. if britain decides to remain in it will be a watchdog to make sure that any other government will continue to keep the promises it made to the british people in this campaign. the british politics have been altered permanently by this referendum whatever the result.

it will be altered in a way that i think is better. millions of british people are skeptics, and to treat them as people who are not worth listening to. i know tony abbott as you probably do. i think highly of him. i think he is wrong on this. it's not surprising. the entire bezos establishment, he would have had to spend a lot more time thinking about it and looking into it before he felt he could come out with anything on the other side. i think his main motives, his main concern is the unity and stability at a time when it is threatened by putin. i understand that. it is a very serious matter and we have to respect that. >> competitive enterprise institute. you did not discuss the future of the united kingdom if we have brexit.

can you comment on scotland and how that might fit in? >> u.s. news & world report. i am just curious about your thoughts on whether or not europe is willing to let britain go, regardless of the voting of the referendum. here in the u.s. we have operated from the idea that we are sovereign political interests tease -- entities, an idea that was put to bed in 1865. will europe actually let britain go? >> first of all, mice to see you again.

we have to pile hypotheticals on hypotheticals. supposing brexit passes, we don't know if it would pass in scotland. everybody says the scouts will vote against it, by how much. who will passes bill to have a second referendum, it will have to be agreed by the british government who probably wouldn't agree because of the referendum two years ago. and finally, we don't know that it would get through the scottish parliament. they no longer have a majority there. most of the other parties would

be opposed to leaving. it is a possibility. it may happen. my view of scottish independence referendum, i did not want scotland to leave the union and it turns out they didn't. but they have a right to go. i think they would not -- s ic thinkots the price of oil in the basement, high price of oil was the economic case for independence. and with the spaniards determined, by letting that scots in. finally, after all, if the scots want to go, we will let them go. they may come back. now what would your question? it is possible to imagine the circumstances 200 years, in which a european super state wouldn't allow one of its members to disappear. i think we are talking about a

different world. we don't know what it will be like for the moment. the great desire in europe to keep people in. the way it is done is not with guns, but with large checks with the northern your appearance -- northern europeans right in the southern europeans cash. i think that will be true until germany runs out of money. then i think it will be interesting. i don't think there will be a battle. >> center for individual rights,

i have a question about the effect of brexit on the relationship between the european union and russia. i am thinking both that western europe tends to be more accommodating with russia and britain. and also, the populist parties, the pro-exit parties of the european union tends to be accommodation list unless they are on the border. all this tendency to a comment by germany, won't those tendencies get greater -- either for the breakup of the union or for more accommodation -- >> my own view is european defense policy, the attempt to

create a separate european defense -- european army for example. it either diverts resources or duplicates what major already does. it is a set delete -- subtly backed thing. they should have not gone along with that. they should have insisted the european defense treaty, risk protects the whole of europe that has done so since 1949 is

nato. except no substitutes. those substitutes are a distraction, and the resources at a time when the europeans are not spending enough money on defense of any kind. that's what we should be saying to them. instead of creating these fancy dress uniforms, but we needs -- need is for europe to spend more on defense. i think that may happen as a result of the rising of putin and russia. i think britain's leading a european defense structure would be a plus, a good thing. we should not fear it. that i think this stuff about the accommodation of central europe is overdone. it is a reaction to the fact that in 2009, president obama told the central europeans -- he withdrew the deal over the missile defense treaty, he took the pole on the sovereign invasion of poland of 1939. they have quite reasonably begun to fear if we have an aggressive rush on our border or next-door to the border, we have to find of not irritating them.

i think that is, more than anything else, is the response. you will notice that the central european countries have continued to play their part in "holding -- upholding -- a don't like it because it harms the economy's. but they had kept and maintained the sanctions on russia. i think this is overstated. >> today immigration and sovereignty are motivated the rights in the u.k., and what you said about english morality, you associate that with economic and

foreign-policy. today, [indiscernible] >> the immigration policy should always be in all countries should be determined by the capacity of the country. both in economic terms and in cultural terms. what you want is immigration to run as a level, that means those people don't feel -- that new

arrivals don't feel a small imitation enclave of their own country without joining america or britain. in general, that has been true and successful. it has been successful until sometime in the 80's. sometimes the sense that they want to maintain a separate kind of institution, nationality within america or britain, that has led to serious problems. problems of national cohesion and social order and terrorism. we have to bear those things in mind in a practical way. mrs. thatcher did control immigration. she did not stop it, continued it at a moderate level. it did not really -- rise of level which it created attention

in the society. people -- groups assimilated fairly well. not all groups, as we know. muslims are always harder to assimilate. they have an impervious, separatists culture. and they assimilate and they get productive members of society. the problem in britain is that they encourage this in an interesting way. we no longer teach our own children to be proud of being british. it is something which has disappeared. mrs. thatcher certainly wanted them to do that. at one point in the war, churchill was asked by one of his minister, what are we going to teach the children in the new schools we're planning? churchill said, tell them how will took quebec.

he is onto something. we need to work out the application of churchill's remarks. it is interesting why countries like india for example, do, stressed commitment to the country. they have the same kind of attitude as americans do, they pledged allegiance to the flag and the end of thing. it is hard to imagine that happening in britain today. but if britain will survive, they will have to think about it again. >> i am curious about your views as pointed out, immigration is a successful arm and -- argument that the arms campaign has used against the state campaign. i remember reading a canadian newspaper during lady thatcher's governance of the united kingdom, about his proposal of a monetary union within the

anglosphere between u.s., canada -- between canada, u.k., australia and new zealand. >> the question is? >> [indiscernible] >> i am not an economist. looking at the euro makes me think there should be serious test before we have a monetary union. i'd like to leave that to the monetary experts. i can see where something is failing, like the euro. i don't necessarily want to lay the round were clear.

as regards to immigration in the debate. in a way, in brexit has been a battle between the people who say we have to remain in europe to be prosperous. i personally think that is false , and so do a lot of economists. the panel is not in the majority, but when experts differ, it's for the rest of us to make the best choice that we can. that is what they are saying. the other side says look, i am happy to remain in the free trade area, but, we don't want to find ourselves living in a country in which we don't govern ourselves. britain has been self governing democracy, and we don't see any reason why we should give that up. the problem with the sovereignty argument is that it is a in abstract argument. unless you have an example of how the loss of sovereignty is

damaging to you. in this case, the fact that the european union, you are not able to control the entry of european citizens into your country at all. they have free movement of labor , and free movement of persons. you have lost control of immigration. immigration has been very high, all from the eu and other parts of the world. the majority of the citizens are very worried about it. during the campaign, new figures came out suggesting that the government didn't know how many people were coming into the country, and how many people are claiming tax relief and so forth. the immigration has been an important part of the brexit debate.

a very strong illustration of >> my question is, i know you are for brexit. if you are running the campaign against it, what would you say is the best argument? is an interesting question. quick thatis an interesting question. because that campaign has not succeeded. it didn't necessarily win, but the campaign as a whole of the remaining people has been a failure. one of the reasons being, some of the claims of what will happen become so ludicrous as a people just dismiss them. you may not have seen on television, david cameron's first exposure to this, when he gave

an interview, but the interviewer said to him, -- mentioning two recent prophecies, he said tell me prime minister, what will come first after brexit, world war ii or the great depression? the whole audience exploded in laughter. obviously these exaggerated claims were not being believed. i thought at that point, well they'll have to scale back on that. they will have to do something cooler or calmer and they haven't. this week, george osborne threatened an emergency budget if brexit has passed. by 37ld raise taxes million pounds. 57% of mps said they would never vote for such a budget. that is the opposite of what you should do.

two former chancellor's and to party leaders wrote a letter to the telegraph saying that osborne was indulging in surging -- silly scare stories verging on desperation. you don't offer get channels are saying this, no responsible chancellor could make such -- can pursue such a policy. in tory terms, that is a nuclear weapon. that policy has failed. i suppose i would stress the uncertaiies and risk of life outside. that's what they have done. the problem is that the other side and stress the risks of remaining inside the european union, particularly if they are talking about establishing new

sources of european institutions, like a european army or a new fiscal union that will take away fiscal sovereignty from the states. i think my answer is coming up. i don't think there's a good case for it, and it would be very hard for me to think of one. >> [indiscernible] >> one of the arguments you hear around washington as -- is it would weaken the special relationship. how can it be used to strengthen the special relationship? >> i don't think it would weaken the special relationship at all. is if you problems are a journalist and writing about these things they are all part

, of a kind of responsible public official and they take a cue from each other's, they said on the same panels and exchange the same ideas. they fall victim to a kind of conformity. it is called group think. if you look at the institutions which have recently been issuing these condemnations at the idea of brexit, what you will find is people slightly lower down from the top than -- person, giving a speech cap saying i don't agree, or i don't think the bank of england is correct on this. there are people coming forward saying this is nonsense. there may be negative impact, there may be positive impact. are we sure that leaving a system which is fundamentally

3%, tariff and an intrusive system, it will not have a terrible effect on the british economy or on british society. quite a lot of these arguments just have to be met with a robust, realistic common sense. i'veorry, i don't think have answered your question, how by? -- have i? >> [indiscernible] >> i don't think it would weaken the special relationship in the slightest. i am a huge fan of america. i married to american, ami have american stepdaughters, i pay american taxes. i am very much on the american

side. i would be open to trying to forge agreement on americans on policies with a number of things. if you say to me, it is useful having you chat at the conference tables in brussels where all of these things are hammered out. you can represent our interests. i say well, that's fine. but i don't think it justifies my surrendering my political independence and democracy in order to help you out from time to time. yet, that is the nature of the argument that barack obama made to the british people. we love you, stay in there and fight for us. give in. go fight for yourselves. >> a final question for you. with regard to david cameron. if britain votes to leave the

european union and next week, what is the fate of the prime minister? >> there are two people involved, david cameron and osborne are in a partnership. george osborne is a dead man walking, he will not be prime minister and not will be able to remain. as chancellor of the exchequer. he has waged -- they both waged a campaign that is highly aggressive, and in which people just think is unreasonable. i think he has lost his authority. i don't think he will stay. the prime minister's fate will depend on the vote. if there is brexit, i don't think most members of the conservative party in or out of

parliament would think that the man who waged such a passionate campaign against brexit is a man to negotiate with europe for the conditions of our departure. i think they will conclude that it should be something else. in the event that there is a narrow victory for remain, the prime minister will perhaps be able to stay on in office, but he will do so as the prisoner of horace. you will have to surround himself with ministers who are on the opposite side of the campaign in recent weeks. the conservative party will conclude that mr. cameron's judgment and calling a referendum, he really didn't have a good idea of what the impact of it would be, then almost losing it means that he is on a very short leash and i doubt he would survive for long. i do think the big question is,

the only way that he can in a sense retain independence and power is if there is a massive majority to remain. and that doesn't look like it. but it may happen. the long-term question is this. the right in british politics is being divided by this issue for some time, and divided by two different parties, in the last 10 years. if brexit occurs, remain wins by a small majority, i think a lot of people will be saying to themselves the right to remain in office for a long time is it reunites in the same way that canadian reunited the conservative party. they then held power for i think nine years. there will be a lot of people

who were wondering how to get them back, within the conservative fold. that can be hard thing to do. brothers who fall out are often worse enemies than strangers can ever be. i do think there will be a lot of people wondering, if we get together we will have more than 50% of the vote. they've got enough to be in power for a long time. that's a very tempting opportunity. >> i would like to thank you for your tremendous presentation today. [applause] i hope you will be back here again in the coming months.

you are one of our greatest friends here at heritage. thank everybody for joining us and we look forward to the brexit referendum next week. thank you. [applause]

>> britain's referendum on whether to remain in the european union is thursday and you can see a live simulcast of the coverage on our website, www.c-span.org and on our companion network, c-span2. that starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern on thursday. right now, tributes in the british house of commons to ox.ber of parliament jo c she was murdered last week after a meeting with constituents. >> order. colleagues, we meet today in heartbreaking sadness but also in heartfelt solidarity.

such awfuln circumstances is an outrage and a tragedy, yet this death in person, ourof this democratically elected , iseague, jo cox particularly shocking and repugnant. herof us it came to know during her all too short service in this house became swiftly of her outstanding qualities. she was caring, eloquent, principled, and wise. with all, she was filled humanity. by love for

family, and a relentless campaigner for equality, human rights, and social justice, she was proud to be the member of parliament where she had her roots, and she was determined to live life to the full. she succeeded superbly. jo was murdered in the course of her duty, serving constituents in need. them, just asr she fought for others at home and abroad, who were victims of discrimination, or

injustice. this strikes not but at an individual, our freedom. here,s why we assemble both to honor jo and to redouble our dedication to democracy. i call the leader of the opposition, jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last thursday, jo cox was doing what all of us here do -- representing and serving the people who elected her. we have lost one of our own, and our society as a whole has lost one of our very best. she had spent her life serving and campaigning for other

people, whether as a worker for oxfam or for the anti-slavery charity, the freedom fund, as a political activist and as a feminist. the horrific act that took jo from us was an attack on democracy, and our whole country has been shocked and saddened by it, but in the days since the country has also learned something of the extraordinary humanity and compassion that drove her political activism and beliefs. jo cox did not just believe in loving her neighbor; she believed in loving her neighbor's neighbor. she saw a world of neighbors and she believed that every life counted equally. in a very moving tribute, kate allen, the director of amnesty international, said -- her

campaigning on refugees, syria and the rights of women and girls made her stand out as an mp who always put the lives of the most vulnerable at the heart of her work. her former colleague at the freedom fund, nick grono, said -- jo was a powerful champion for the world's most vulnerable and marginalized. she spoke out in support of refugees, for the palestinian people and against islamophobia in this country. her integrity and talent was known by everyone in this house, and by the community of batley and spen, which she proudly represented here for the past year. it was that community in batley and spen that brought her up, as well, of course, as her wonderful family, with whom we share their grief today. her community and the whole country has been united in grief

and united in rejecting the well of hatred that killed her in what increasingly appears to have been an act of extreme political violence. we are filled with sorrow for her husband, brendan, and young children. they will never see her again, but they can be so proud of everything she was, all she achieved and all she stood for, as we are, as are her parents, as is her sister and as are her whole wider family. jo would have been 42 this wednesday. she had much more to give, and much more that she would have achieved. i want to thank the heroes who tried to intervene. bernard kenny, a 77-year-old former miner, saw the need and ran to jo's aid.

he was stabbed and taken to hospital. i am sure that the whole house will join me in wishing mr kenny a speedy and full recovery. many shopkeepers and bystanders also tried to help, and administered first aid to jo and bernard, and there were also the police officers who made the arrest and the national health service paramedics who were on the scene so quickly. in her maiden speech last year, jo said -- our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration. while we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as i travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. we need a kinder and gentler politics. this is not a factional party political point.

we all have a responsibility in this house and beyond not to whip up hatred or sow division. thank you, mr speaker, and thank you, prime minister, and rose hudson-wilkin, our wonderful chaplain, for accompanying me to the vigil for jo last friday at the priestley statue in the centre of the lovely town of birstall. we, all of us, were moved by the unity and warmth of the crowd brought together in grief and solidarity. i have been very moved by the public outpourings since her deaththe hundreds of letters and emails we have all received in solidarity with jo's family in their hour of griefand by the outpouring of charitable donations to causes close to her

heart, the white helmets, hope not hate, and the royal voluntary service. last night, my hon. friend the member for islington south and finsbury and i held a vigil outside our town hall, one of hundreds of vigils attended by tens of thousands of people right across our land who are so shocked by what has happened and want to express that shock and grief. i also want to thank the other parties in this house, which have offered their sympathy and support at this very difficult time. we are united in grief at her loss, and we must be aware that her killing is an attack on our democracy. it is an attack on our whole society. as my hon. friend the member for wirral south wrote recently, jo's life was a demonstration against despair. in jo's tragic death, we can

come together to change our politics, to tolerate a little more and condemn a little less. jo's grieving husband brendan said -- jo believed in a better world and she fought for it every day of her life with an energy, and a zest for life that would exhaust most people. today, we remember jo's compassion and her passion to create a better world. in her honor, we recommit ourselves to that task. >> we are here today to remember an extraordinary colleague and friend. jo cox was a voice of compassion, whose irrepressible spirit and boundless energy lit up the lives of all who knew her

and saved the lives of many she never ever met. today, we grieve her loss and we hold in our hearts and prayers her husband brendan, her parents and sister, and her two children, who are just three and five years old. we express our anger at the sickening and despicable attack that killed her as she did her job serving her constituents on the streets of birstall. let me join the leader of the opposition in his moving words praising bernard kenny and all those who tried to save her. above all, in this house we pay tribute to a loving, determined, passionate and progressive politician, who epitomized the best of humanity and who proved so often the power of politics to make our world a better place. i first met jo in 2006 in darfur. she was doing what she was so brilliant at -- bravely working in one of the most dangerous

parts of the world, fighting for the lives of refugees. her decision to welcome me, then a conservative leader of the opposition, had not been entirely welcomed by all her colleagues and friends, but it was typical of her determination to reach across party lines on issues that she felt were so much more important than party politics. jo was a humanitarian to her core, a passionate and brilliant campaigner, whose grit and determination to fight for justice saw her, time and time again, driving issues up the agenda and making people listen and, above all, act; drawing attention to conflicts in sudan and the democratic republic of the congo; helping to expose the despicable practice of rape in war; her work with sarah brown on cutting mortality in childbirth; her support for refugees fleeing the war in syria. quite simply, there are people on our planet today who are only here and alive because of jo.

jo was a committed democrat and a passionate feminist. she spent years encouraging and supporting women around the world to stand for office, long before she did so herself. when she was elected as an mp, just over a year ago, she said to one of her colleagues that she did not just want to be known for flying around the world tackling international issues, but that she had a profound duty to stand up for the people of batley and spen, and she was absolutely as good as her word. as she said in her maiden speech, jo was proud to be made in yorkshire and to serve the area in which she had grown up. she belonged there, and in a constituency of truly multi-ethnic, multi-faith communities, she made people feel that they belonged too. jo's politics were inspired by love, and the outpouring and unity of the tributes we have seen in the past few days show the extraordinary reach and impact of her message, for in remembering jo we show today

that what she said in this house is trueand i know it will be quoted many times today -- we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.. this wednesday, as the leader of the opposition said, would have been jo's 42nd birthday, and there will be a global celebration of her life and values with simultaneous events in new york and washington, london, batley, brussels, geneva, nairobi and beirut. she should of course have been celebrating her birthday by hosting her traditional summer solstice party. it reminds us that behind the formidable professional was a loving and fun mother, daughter, sister, wife and friend, with a warm welcoming smile and so often laughter in her voice. jo brought people together; she saw the best in people and she brought out the best in them. a brave adventurer and a keen climber, jo was never daunted. when most people hear of a place called the inaccessible

pinnacle, they leave it well alone. not jo. she did not just climb it; she abseiled down it, and did so despite a bad case of morning sickness. it was her irrepressible spirit that helped to give her such determination and focus in her politics, too. a conservative colleague of mine said this weekend -- if you lost your way for a moment in the cut and thrust of political life, meeting jo would remind you why you went into politics in the first place. there have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, but if i may i would like to quote someone already mentioned. >> we mourn your loss, yet know that all you stood for is unbreakable. we promise to stand up, even though we are broken. we promise that we will never be cowed by hate. may we and the generations of members who follow us in this house honor jo's memory by

proving that the democracy and freedoms that jo stood for are indeed unbreakable, by continuing to stand up for our constituents, and by uniting against the hatred that killed her, today and forever more. >> rachel reeves. >> i stand here today to honor a friend and a colleague. along with shock, anger and grief, i have very many fond memories of jo. jo and i knew each other for around 10 years. i have known her husband brendan for longer than that -- we first met at a labour student conference about 18 years ago, and it was through brendan that i first met jo. i remember jo and brendan coming round for dinner at my and my

husband's house in london and our visiting them on their boatfirst in ladbroke grove and later in wapping. i remember worrying that i had drunk too much wine early in the evening, until i realised that it was the boat that was swaying and not me. i remember talking with jo about her future shortly after i became an mp. she was thinking about standing for parliament and spent a day shadowing me in my constituency of leeds west, talking to constituents about their problems, campaigning with local party members and attending meetings. by the end of the day, a lot of people were not sure who was the mp and who was doing the shadowing. jo had a way with peoplea way of relating to people from all walks of life. she had a real way of doing that. jo's main hesitation about a parliamentary career was her young family. she worried, as many of us do, about whether she could be a great mp and a great mum at the same time. but when the opportunity came up to represent her home seat of batley and spen, jo felt a special responsibility to step up and do what she could for the

place where she was born, grew up and went to schoolthe place that jo called home. jo wanted to make the world fairer, more equal, more tolerant and more generous. we all have better instincts and deepest fears. jo appealed to our better instinctsour sense that, as she said in her maiden speech, what we have in common is greater than what divides us. on friday morning, less than 24 hours after jo was killed, i sat in a coffee shop in batley just a few minutes away from where jo had been murdered. a woman came over to me and said that she had not known jo, but that jo's death had made her want to be a bit more like hera better person, a better mother, a better daughter, a better wife. it is ironic that, having travelled to some of the most damaged, war-ravaged places in

the world, jo died so near to her home. but she died doing the job she loved, in the place she loved, representing the people she loved. her mum and dad said to me that jo would not have changed a thing. she lived the life she wanted to live. and yet, in her mum's words -- she had so much more that she could have done. jo was struck down much too soon. so it now falls on all our shoulders, the woman i met in a batley coffee shop, jo's friends, mps, all of usto carry on jo's work -- to combat and guard against hatred, intolerance and injustice and to serve others with dignity and love. that is the best way we can remember jo and all she stood for. but lastly, let me say this. batley and spen will go on to elect a new mp. but no one can replace a mother. >> mr. andrew mitchell. >> today we mourn the terrible loss of our friend and colleague

jo, so tragically murdered as she went about her constituency duties last thursday. the life has been taken of a truly exceptional woman, whose goodness and passionate dedication to humanitarian values has inspired us all. i knew her as a friend, but how unbearable must it be for those who mourn her as a daughter, sister, husband and, above all, as their beloved mum, whom they used to visit for tea each week in portcullis house. i first met jo 10 years ago in london, when we marched against injustice in darfur, and on two visits to al-fashir in darfur, where she helped develop a central humanitarian role for oxfam. the leader of the opposition, as he then was, and i stayed there with her and other humanitarian workers and witnessed her crucial role for oxfam in

supporting women and children and securing water for thousands of refugees in the el salam and abu shouk camps. she gave me the green wristbandi wear it stillto ensure that we remembered the desperate people caught up in what president bush rightly described as a genocide. it is among her many friends and colleagues in the international humanitarian and development family all around the world, of which she was such a respected and experienced member, that she will be mourned and remembered as a staunch friend of the most desperate and deprived in our world and as a campaigner against injustice. when she entered this house just 13 short months ago, she rapidly used her deep knowledge to champion the dispossessed. she was labour to her fingertips, but restlessly dismissive of party political

manoeuvring, which she saw as a barrier to progress. making common cause with a crusty old tory, she and i became co-chairs of the all-party friends of syria. and she was brave -- her energy and effectiveness were an inspiration. we invited ourselves to tea with the russian ambassador in his london residence. with clever charm but steely determination, this five-foot bundle of old-fashioned yorkshire common sense dressed him down for his country's cruelty and cynicism in syria. i do not believe the russian ambassador will easily forget that visit. i think there are many things jo would want us to remember this afternoon. may i mention just two? i do not believe she would want this vile and unspeakable act to change the open and accessible

relationship we enjoy with our constituents. all of us take the advice of our local police in protecting those who work with and support us. thankfully, the record shows these attacks are as infrequent as they are disgraceful. secondly, jo would want us in this house to redouble our efforts to resolve the greatest catastrophe of our age -- the crisis in syria, where the lives of more than 11 million people have been ruined while the international community has shown itself disorganized, ineffective and supine. i mourn jo today as a friend and as a colleague, but most of all i mourn for her as a mother, whose two gorgeous children will now have to chart the shoals and

eddies of life without the love and support of their wonderful, lovely mum. >> i want to add to the very moving tributes to jo. i got to know jo after the 2010 general election, when she was elected to chair labour women's network, which she did for four years. she would regularly burst into my office with that extraordinary energy she had and tell me all that they were doing to help labour women get elected to parliament to give women a bigger voice in the party. so many of the labour women here in this chamber today who were elected in 2015 and who are so deeply mourning jo's loss were women whom, under jo's leadership, labour women's network helped and supported. not long after she had her son, she came to give me one of those regular briefings, and, of course, the baby came tooi remember it because she literally did not stop kissing him all the way through the meeting.

when she had her daughter, she was still there for the women who were trying to become candidatestexting them support, phoning to commiserate if they did not make it, urging them to try again. her feminismher solidarity with other womenwas a thread that ran through her and all her work in her community and for humanitarian causes. she always said to me emphatically that her children were her priority above everything. but there was no dividing line between jo's maternal heart and her great political heart. her children will grow up to know what an amazing woman their mother was. she is such a great loss to our politics; and an irreplaceable loss to her family, to whom we send our heartfelt sympathy. >> what an amazing woman. jo was

one of us. she was clearly a remarkable person. these are not my comments, although i clearly concur with them; they are just some of the many comments i heard from constituents and from those i met over the weekend in batley and spen. conscious of time and wanting to ensure that her friends have the opportunity to speak, i make this short but heartfelt contribution on behalf of my fellow yorkshire conservative mps. i first met jo just over a year ago. it was not long after the general election and we were both appearing on the region's sunday politics show. on arriving at the studio, i was taken to the make-up room, where jo was already sitting in the chair. needless to say, i had to spend a lot longer in that chair than she did. [laughter] as i walked in, jo looked at me in the reflection in the mirror

and greeted me with that wonderful smile that lit her whole face. in that instant, that split second, i knew this was someone i was going to like enormously, and i was not wrong. as we recorded the programme, it was clear that actually we agreed with each other on a number of issues. i am sure that the lack of political argument came as a huge disappointment to the producers. it is a testament to who jo was that she got her point across effectively and calmly, without the need for talking over peoplebecause when jo spoke, people listened. jo was always passionate about the issues she cared aboutnever afraid to stand up for those she felt had no voicebut she was also a proud yorkshirewoman, and our county is rightly proud of her. as i spent time in birstall and batley over this weekend, it was clear that her constituents loved her. almost everyone i spoke to had

met her -- quite an achievement in just a year. as the floral tributes increased, you could sense the outpouring of love for jo. on friday, as some 2,000 people, from all faiths and none, packed into the al-hikmah centre in batley, tribute after tribute spoke of the qualities of one of the most outstanding members this house had. many described her as a rising star; personally, i think she was a star, full stop. the statements from jo's husband, her sister and her familypowerful, inclusive, passionatedemonstrate the background that many of her values came from. in her maiden speech, as we have heard, she talked about how we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. in everything she did, she promoted those values. she united communities and campaigned for things that highlighted the unifying qualities she cared so

passionately about. in these last few days, i have been amazed at the kindness and love expressed on social media and in emails, letters, cards and conversations. the #thankyourmp hashtag has encouraged so many messages of gratitude and appreciation, even from people who have opposing views. in her tragic death, jo is managing to achieve what she successfully did so much in her life. i know i am not alone in saying that i will miss jo. i will miss her compassion, her determination, her convictionbut above all i will miss her smile, whether it be as we passed each other in the corridor or from across the chamber. jo was a proud yorkshire lass; a brilliant yorkshire rose. my only regret about jo is that i only knew her for a year.

>> jo and i have been friends for over 20 years, and we have had a wonderful 12 months sharing an office since our election last may. jo used to use my cupboard as a wardrobe, and i will never forget her dashing around in her cycling gear, grabbing her clothes and shouting something over her shoulder about her latest project or campaign. she often brought her lovely children into the office with her, and if i was lucky i would get a dinosaur drawing or a chance to read them a story. they are wonderful kids, who are truly bathed in love. the murder of jo cox was a national tragedy, but we must also remember the unspeakable personal suffering that it has caused. jo's family have lost a loving mother, wife, daughter and sister. the fearless jo cox never stopped fighting for what is right. she gave voice to the voiceless.

she spoke truth to power. she exemplified the best values of our party and of our country -- compassion, community, solidarity and internationalism. she put her convictions to work for everyone she touchedfor the people of batley and spen, for the wretched of syria and for victims of violence and injustice everywhere. on thursday, jo was assassinated because of what she was and because of what she stood for. but out of the deep darkness of jo's death must now come the shining light of her legacy. so let us build a politics of hope, not fear; respect, not hate; unity, not division. i can only imagine jo's reaction had she seen the poster that was unveiled hours before her deatha poster on the streets of britain that demonised hundreds of desperate refugees, including hungry, terrified children, fleeing from the terror of isis

and from russian bombs. she would have responded with outrage, and with a robust rejection of the calculated narrative of cynicism, division and despair that it represents, because jo understood that rhetoric has consequences. when insecurity, fear and anger are used to light a fuse, an explosion is inevitable. in the deeply moving tribute that brendan cox made last thursday, he urged the british people to unite and fight against the hatred that killed jo. it is the politics of division and fear, the harking back to incendiary slogans and the rhetoric of britain first that twists patriotism from love of country into an ugly loathing of others. we must now stand up for something better, because of someone better. in the name of jo cox and all that is decent, we must not let this atrocity intimidate our democracy. we must now work to build a more respectful and united country. this is our time to honor the

legacy of the proud yorkshire lass who dedicated her life to the common good and who was so cruelly taken away from us in the prime of her life. jo cox, we love you, we salute you and we shall never forget you. >> jo cox was a politician who spanned continents and political parties. among other causes, she campaigned alongside many of us on behalf of people with autism. with her death, we have lost a powerful advocate. when i came into this house in 1992, i sat alongside the first woman mp for batley and spen, elizabeth peacock. she held her surgeries for 14 years in the birstall library, and she exchanged letters with jo when jo was still at school. like all of us, she has been

shocked to the core by this tragedy. she asked me to say that the attack on jo was an attack on our democracy and on the very basis of our government and political system. she will mourn the loss of an outstanding friend in politics. jo's family will mourn her as irreplaceable. we will mourn a woman of talent and humanity, a rising star and a bright light, whose voice may now be extinguished but whose spirit, which epitomises our democracy, will not be forgotten. it will inspire not only her children but many generations of politicians still to come. >> this is the hardest speech i will ever give. however, it was not difficult to write because there was so much that i wanted to say. jo cox, the hon. member for batley and spen, was the very best of us. she may have been small, but in politics as in life, she packed a punch that was simply beyond

measure. she came into this place with such passion and energy. from the start, she had a clarity about what she was here to achieve and what needed to change, and she was not going to waste any time in getting on with it. she knew that the people counting on her could not afford to wait. jo's experiences of working in some of the most dangerous places in the world, caring for some of the most desperately vulnerable, upholding the principles of justice and basic human rights, were reflected in her politics and her character. it meant that when she spoke, people listened. there was a weight to what she had to say and she was not afraid to say it. she had a vision of a world better than the one that has taken her from us. characteristically, jo would work across the benches to build support for change in the most collegiate way. that has been reflected in the tributes paid to her. when the new 2015 intake of labour mps arrived in westminster in may last year, our then acting leader, my right

honorable member telling us that every day you are an mp is a day that you can make a difference. nobody embodied that sentiment more than jo. with friends and colleagues, jo would speak candidly about the challenges of balancing a young family with the pressures of being a diligent and effective member of parliament. i was both jo's friend and jo's whip, which should have been a difficult balance to strike, but it was not. that is not to say that she was the easiest person to whip as she knew that certain late night votes were not as important as being there to put her children to bed and to tuck them in. jo managed to reconcile being a hero of our movement with being incredibly down to earth. people only had to hear jo speak to know that her roots were firmly in batley and spen. she was a daughter of yorkshire and she fought tirelessly for those who had put their faith in her. like all of us, i will remember jo in many different ways. she spoke of her predecessor, dr broughton, in her maiden speech, alluding to the fact that he had been credited with bringing down

a government, and she put government front benchers on notice with a smile that we all came to know and love. although they laughed it off at the time, i would not be at all surprised if they had become increasingly nervous once they began to realiseust how formidable she was. i will also remember jo in the voting lobbies in her cycling kit and trainers, leaving us all wondering where she found the energy. i remember hearing about the trials and tribulations of the kids recently having chicken pox. i remember regional news following her as a newly elected mp and capturing the moment when one of the kids lost their shoe to the thames and jo had to try to retrieve it, all before starting the day. i will remember her warmth, her spirit and her laugh. those of us from my intake who had the pleasure of jo's company as she hosted an event to mark our first year in office last tuesday will be eternally grateful for those treasured memories and the chance to all be together one last time. my hon.

friend the member for redcar told me that she will remember jo as a comet -- burning brightly, lighting up the dark, awe-inspiring, giving off sparks of heat, light and positive energy wherever it goes. i cannot think of a better way of describing her. jo was the heart and soul of the labour benches and we are heartbroken. we loved her every day and we will miss her every day. she inspired us all and i swear that we will do everything in our power to make her and her family incredibly proud. >> britain's referendum on whether to remain in the european union is thursday and you can see a live simulcast of referendum coverage on our website, www.c-span.org and on our companion network, c-span2. that starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern on thursday. the u.s. senate is in the first of a series of votes on gun control measures.

centers are taking a procedural vote on legislation from our judiciary committee chair. >> mr. gardner, no. aye.arter, cassidy, aye. ms. warren, no. >> three more senate procedural votes are coming up. the three bills being voted on our measure from connecticut democrats that would require background checks at gun shows. texas republican john cornyn. his bill would let the justice department seek a court order to

delay gun purchases for three days by people on the government's no-fly list. is froml measure california democrat dianne feinstein. it would allow the justice department to block suspected terrorists on the government's no-fly list from buying guns. federal reserve chairman janet yellen presents her semiannual or nonmonetary policy to congress this week you tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. she goes before the senate taking committee. you can see that live here on c-span. the fed chief testifies before the house financial services committee. that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern, live on our companion network, c-span3. >> with the political primary season over, c-span's road to the white house takes you to this summer's political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland.

next we will be going into the convention matter what happens and i think were going to go in so strong. >> what's the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward and when the nomination. fight for take our social, economic, racial, and environmental justice to philadelphia. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention, on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. >> the women's foreign policy group today hosted three assistant secretaries of state to discuss the fight against terrorism around the globe. the assistant secretaries, all women, oversee middle eastern affairs, african affairs, and

migration. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome back to those attending the luncheon and a welcome to those joining us the a c-span. i'm patricia ellis, president of the women's foreign policy group which promotes women's leadership and voices on pressing international issues of the day. wf those of you new to the pg, we encourage you to go to our website or follow us on twitter to learn more about our work and our programs. now the exciting part of the celebration of women leaders begins. as we have an extremely timely you on in store for combating terrorism, regional conflict, and migration challenges in the middle east and africa with three

outstanding women leaders. assistant secretaries of state whose bureaus cover these issues. , linda thomas greenfield, and and richards. ann richards. our moderator will introduce them shortly. it's now migrate pleasure to introduce a good friend of the women's foreign policy group, ng.en deyou associate editor of the washington post, who has been a regular speaker and moderator , and we really appreciate that. thank you so much, karen. [applause] previously served as bureau chief in latin america, london, a correspondent covering the white house, covering

foreign policy and the , as wellnce community as assistant managing editor for national news, national editor and foreign editor. she is also the recipient of numerous journalism awards for her coverage of international affairs. please join me in welcoming karen. [applause] >> thank you, pat. good afternoon. i'm so happy to be back here with such a great turnout. says, we have a title that covers a whole lot of territory today. combating terrorism, and migration challenges in the middle east and africa. i hope we can do justice to it, but in the effort, i'm always struck when i walked down the

because most of them are women. three of the most senior and experienced diplomats, men or women, to take us through some of the most pressing national security issues of our time. i'll just really introduce them, ann patterson is a career diplomat who currently serves as ,ssistant secretary of state and many of you have known her for years in many of these positions, she was ambassador for some of the world's most challenging assignment, egypt, pakistan, columbia, el salvador, and served as a representative at the u.s. mission to the united nations. in 2008 she was promoted to the rank of career ambassador, the highest rank in foreign service. in the middle, linda thomas

who currently serves as assistant secretary for the bureau of african affairs. previously she was director of the foreign service, director of human resources, ambassador to in 2000 she received the warren christopher award for her work with refugees and has also received the presidential meritorious a service award. ann richards, i don't think there could be anyone as qualified for her job. she previously was vice president of government relations and advocacy for the ,nternational rescue committee and international aid agency that helps refugees and internally displaced people and other victims of conflict. before that she had a number of government and diplomatic jobs including deputy chief financial officer. i will ask each of you to start

with a brief overview of the issues in your area that are of most concern to the is youtration, what it spend most of your time on the state, and then we can have a discussion among ourselves. i will ask an initial round of questions and then incorporate the questions you write on the cards that are on your table. will feel free to turn it into a real discussion and interrupt each other, and add comments to what each other is saying. will start with the islamic state and extremism because to one degree or another, it concerns all three of you. nn patterson, the foreign said in of saudi arabia a press conference friday that the document that leaked from the state department last week had his government's absolute support. the document called for a more

assertive u.s. role in syria based on the standoff in air to drive a more hard and focused u.s. diplomatic process, leveraging the international serious support group to end the daily mask killing of civilians and egregious violations of human rights. i will interrupt myself right now because i missed a step, to ask each of you to give introductory comments and i apologize for that. [laughter] karen: but now you know -- [indiscernible] >> thank you for that introduction. and to pat, who has worked tirelessly. [applause] this is a very sophisticated audience. you know there will not be any easy answers in this part of the world.