of the fbi terrorist screening center from 2009 to 2012. and then later dingell griswold talks more about the uk's referendum and the future of the european union. ♪ host: good morning on this saturday, june 20 5, 2016. the headlines are about the turmoil over britain's vote to break with the european union and the ripple effect on the united states both economically and politically. who previously, warm ticket harm u.s. trade relations with britain, vowed that the u.s. will remain committed partners with united kingdom and the european union to ensure continued stability, security and prosperity. the financial markets were anything but stable, taking hard

falls yesterday and reversing gains made in the last few months. presumptive republican presidential nominee donald trump who was in scotland out of business trip cheered the news of the brexit, calling it a great thing and claiming u.k. voters have "taken their country back." that brings us to today's discussion. we will get your reaction to the british vote to leave the eu and its potential effect here in united states. democrats can call in, (202) 748-8000. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and a special line today for those calling outside of the united states, our international viewers can call (202) 748-8003. you can reach us on social media as well as on facebook. the headlines are dominated today by the news of the brexit. the vote by voters in the u.k.

to leave the european union. the wall street journal calls it a shot heard round the world. for the leadictory campaign was perhaps the single largest load to the british populace as delivered to its establishment in modern history. the voters decide the impassioned and unified opposition of the leadership of all five major political parties. they rejected the advice of more than 1200 court to best corporate ceos, including half the chiefs of the 100 companies -- ftse 100 companies. obama, who president warned against a break with the european union, saying it would put britain at the back of the cue when it came to negotiating , but that wasts

to no avail as the wall street journal pointed out and we have voters still embraced the brexit. we will be getting a little bit more information and getting the latest about what is going on. right now we will be joined with ben orescas, who is joining us via phone from politico. thank you for joining us this morning. caller: thank you for having me. host: sorry about that this pronunciation. what is the latest this morning, the reaction about the brexit? caller: i think people are still processing this shockwave. the voters were surprised. people who voted to remain were surprised in the big cities like london. people did not expect this. talk turns to who will replace

david cameron. that will happen over the next couple of months. the other sort of shock is in the financial markets we were mentioning. i think it is worth saying that the stock market, as much as it did drop, did not drop as much as some expected it. the real area of real decline was in the currency markets, the pound going down 7% or 8%. credit to thegive british central-bank for call make some people's fears. this run on the market could have been much worse. host: staying on the point of the market, do we expect things to even out and reset in the days and weeks ahead? caller: yeah, that is how markets work. i think it's going to be a choppy summer. that might be the best way to look at it. it is unclear. a lot of pieces still have to

move into place. there are fears this could send us back into a recession. there is not a lot central banks can do right now. raising interest rates, does not look like it will happen in the near term. i think there is a lot of uncertainty, particularly in the context of how the brexit will look. we don't know much. i saw on twitter today the article 50 that describes how the country leaves the european union is only like 200 or 300 words. there is not a lot of details. that will play out over the next couple of years and that is a long time. host: we're talking to ben oreskes from politico about the brexit that britain's voted in favor of this week. tell us about what happens next. this is a long process. what might we see in the days and months and years ahead? caller: let's start with the next week.

european leaders -- certain european leaders, angela merkel, the president of france, the president of italy, the heads of the european institutions, the european council that really run the european union on a day-to-day basis will meet in various different capacities. european-wide meeting of all the heads of state. they will meet with cameron and without cameron. i don't know we will get some bombshell news from those meetings, but certainly some things will start to look clearer. they are already starting to see a schism in the heads of the european institutions. some are pushing for this to happen as fast as possible. they want no delays. they fear other countries will start to line up their referendum votes, moving to the

medium-term the next big step is the head of the conservative party. we are hearing rumors, the british media is reporting that boris johnson, the former london mayor and michael goats, the justice minister who was sort of on tv a lot, they are trying to come together and run as a ticket for the top two jobs as prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer. are hearing that david cameron is making his final mission to prevent boris johnson getting the job. there is a lot of intrigue and that will play out over the next couple of months. cameron sent by october he wants to step down and have a new leader in place, or by the end of september. then.ill be by and this article 50, once it is invoked, that will take two years. there is a lot to see what happens with it. host: there has been talk that might be a second referendum

vote. some people are calling for that. there is an online petition being circulated calling for that. it has hundreds of thousands of signatures. caller: i would say it's pretty unlikely. this referendum was a long time coming. you have to put this in the context of history. kingdom has always had a complicated relationship with the european union. they initially rejected joining it and eventually did. this was a precursor of the european union, the european community. happened was a big deal and guaranteed given by david cameron. it was thought another one would take place to rebut this. i don't see it happening. in the nextl see is couple of years of referendum by scotland for independence. the scots of always been much more in favor of european integration.

they benefit from them, as do the northern irish. those of the more likely referendums you will see. host: that is ben oreskes from politico. thank you very much for joining us. caller: thank you. host: in this morning's financial times, it talks about the effect of the breakup with europe and some of the next well as the see, as fact that ben pointed out that people were caught off guard by the vote. it was not expected. they write it this made britain's allies and pitched the country into a period of deep political and economic uncertainty. imposed the next essential challenge to the eu after nearly six decades of integration. it is an explosive shock. it is the breakup, peer and

simple, of the union said the french prime minister. german chancellor angela merkel called a turning point for europe. we are getting your reaction to the brexit and what impact it might have here in united states. on thee have terry republican line from hagerstown, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a telltale sign of what i believe may happen in november. like the people in united kingdom, the working-class neighborhoods, were tired of being called racists only one responsible, legal immigration and secured borders. we are being tired of being called islamic phobic and not as a result of easy access of guns. in america you have democrats more interested in transgender bathroom rights than you have giving people full-time jobs. people like myself who watch every nickel and dime and try to

say we have to pay more in taxes, we will increase spending. if the liberal media and elitist were shocked of what happened yesterday, i strongly recommend we have a lot of different relator's -- in the newsrooms across the country. people are upset. host: let me ask you about this. one result of the brexit and this change of course in the u.k. is a lot of uncertainty. people don't know what is going to happen next. do you think of other countries follow the same route, given the more uncertainty? caller: i don't think it will. it will take time to sort out. what happened on wall street is typical uncertainty. they may have a few more days but this will level out. -- they took the country back in the united kingdom. i think in november we will do the same. all people like myself are

saying is we don't might immigrants coming to the country, but we want them legally. we don't mind paying taxes but we want the money spent wisely. there is a thing called priorities. when you have one third of u.s. population not working, i really don't care about transgender bathroom rights or climate change. there are more important things to take care of. that is what the people are going to say in november. host: that is terry from maryland. yesterday, president obama talked about with the eu vote means during his trip to the global entrepreneurship summit. let's look at what he said. [video clip] president obama: a few hours ago i spoke with prime minister david cameron. david has been an outstanding friend and partner on the global stage. based on our conversation, i am confident the u.k. is committed to an orderly transition out of the eu. we agree our economic and financial -- will stay in close

contact as we ensure economic growth and stability. i then spoke with chancellor merkel of germany. we agree the u.s. and european allies will were closing together and the week and months ahead. i do think that yesterday's vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges raised by globalization. while the uk's relationship with the eu will change, one thing that will not change is the special relationship that exists between our two nations. that will endure. the eu will remain one of our indispensable partners. our nato alliance will remain a cornerstone of global security. in a few weeks we will be meeting in warsaw for the nato summit. values. our shared that will continue. host: that was the president by voterso the vote

in the u.k. to exit the european union. we are getting your reaction to that vote as well. tony is coming in from hyattsville, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: what do you think about the brexit? caller: according to educated ones, it is supposed to be a negative thing which it probably will be in the short and maybe the long run. it is an eye-opener for those that think the globalization is a great thing. that when you start marketing all these jobs out of the country they were in and taking them to cheaper countries, the business people and people with the money are the ones getting all the globalization. the working classes getting left out. in saying that, talking the republicans even think about putting trump in, who has no knowledge of the world. all he knows is about his pocketbook. yesterday he is there any shed

some light on how much he knows about this. he basically knows nothing. he just knows it is great for my business. host: let me ask you a question. a lot of folks who voted in favor of the brexit in the u.k. cited a lot of the same sentiment that donald trump talks about. wanting more immigration control, wanting to take care of their own country first. do you think that same sentiment might resume -- resonate in the u.s. as well? caller: we all want that. hybri -- i agree with the republican that called earlier. i have been here for 50 years. i have worked two or three jobs or 30 years. i knew i had to do it for what i was looking to do in the united states. andyou just can't come out say the things that trump says and expect people to work with him on that. ity towards

everything he does is out there. you have got to build some kind of -- you have to get people here legally. work with people. the republicans don't even want to work with -- host: that is tony from maryland. yesterday donald trump did speak about the brexit during his trip to scotland. let's look at what he said. [video clip] mr. trump: they want to have independence. you see it with europe. you will have more than just what happened last night. you will have many other cases where they want to take their borders back. they want to take their monitor back. they want to take a lot of things back. they want to have a country again. i think you will have this happen more and more. i think it is happening in the united states by the fact i have done so well in the polls. host: today's wall street

journal has a little bit more about how this is impacting the presidential year. was the latestte surprise to unsettled the 2016 campaign -- election. they campaign to leave the eu came from frustration with the economic and political system and from the anxiety about immigration. those same concerns have been central to the stunning rise of donald trump and the populist component has yielded unexpected lease strong binary runs by bernie sanders on the democratic side against secretary of state hillary clinton. bernie sanders says a lot of people are being left behind in this global economy, sanders said on friday. the establishment sometimes forgets that real life flesh and blood people in this country are hurting and they are hurting badly." up next on the phones we have rick calling in from florida on our democratic line. do you see similarities in what

is happening in the u.k. now as to what is happening here in the united states in this election year? caller: i most certainly do. we better watch real close because even on the day after this has happened there is a lot of voters remorse going on. people that found out they were misinformed. from what i understand, the people that wanted to break away for the older brits. it was the younger ones, the england that did not want to break away. i think we better watch real close because what is happening there is going to happen here if we let somebody like donald trump become our president. host: let me ask you about the generational divide you were talking about.

generallyople being supportive of staying in the eu versus older voters. do you see similar things here? bernie sanders, for example, had a very strong showing among young people and he is part of this push for change we have seen in this election season. there is a similarity. a lot of things that bernie offering was specifically aimed at the younger people, with a free college and things like that. those are all really good things , which i do think should happen. but i don't think they were going to happen in the timeline he said they were going to happen. as the people go, we have to actually listen to what these people are saying.

and --trump stood there i can't river where he was yesterday. host: he was in scotland yesterday. caller: he was saying the scots were for it. they weren't. misinformed on international affairs, just imagine how he is going to handle them when he is president. host: that is rick from florida. on the point of how voters in different parts of the u.k. voted, as pointed out why a graphic in today's wall street journal. white people in england were supportive of the brexit, particularly in the more rural areas. the bigger cities like london were against leaving the european union. by and large scotland was very much against it, almost

uniformly voting against the as well as- brexit, northern ireland. that has offered speculation as seeking to leave the u.k. and have its own referendum. we have matthew coming in from hackensack, new jersey on the independent line. caller: good morning and thank you. i would like to congratulate our british friends for voting for their independence from the unelected bureaucrats in brussels who were running their lives. taxation without representation. and by the way, congratulate the british for ignoring their fawn overmedia who our failed, incompetent

president and his failed, corrupt secretary of state hillary clinton who allowed the jv team isis cancer to metastasize. know that the media is dishonest -- host: let me ask you this question about the brexit. no member of the european union has ever left it before. this raises a great deal of uncertainty, both politically and economically. are you concerned that whatever percussions all over the world, including here in the united states? are you there? caller: yes, hello. i am not concerned. thank you. i am not concerned because the british are wise enough and have enough economic strength to cooperate with the other countries and make the necessary adjustments economically. but thank god the british

people, as well as the american people see through the media's deception and dishonesty. host: that is matthew calling in from new jersey. up next week have greg from bismarck, north dakota on the independent line. good morning. what is your reaction to the brexit and the fallout that has resulted? caller: i think a lot of the -- this comes from the government. they are not actually giving a voice to the people. they made up their minds that this is the way things are and all of a sudden the general election comes out like that and they here with the people are saying. why are they not listening to them first and then making the decisions? host: in today's washington post there is a story that a lot of britains were perplexed by the vote and even with the european union is, turning to google for answers after the results came

in. it says the confusion over with the brexit might mean for the country's economy appears to have been reflected across britain on thursday. google reported sharp uptick in searches not only related to the ballot but about basic questions concerning the implications of the vote. are you concerned that perhaps the voters were not as informed as they thought they were? caller: again we go back to what it was talking about, the political parties. we have had elections in north dakota. i am not as a be sure but three times we turned down seatbelt laws. i think it was like the third time that they said if you wanted to vote yes, you need to vote no because the way it was worded. they had to send out pamphlets to explain to people how to vote. why would anybody do that? you see what i'm saying? host: in the presidential race are you concerned that backers

of either of the parties nominees were not fully understanding exactly how difficult it might be to implement the policies they are advocating on the ground? said, theyin, like i need to listen to the people. the people are not stupid or uninformed as they believe they are. whothere are some a people are not actually listening to what the people want. what happened in europe, i can see that happening here. if they would sit and hold elections in our country for the public would go by the pure numbers of the people, instead of this is a person to represent us. i see a lot of people losing their jobs in november because they are not listening to the people in her own districts. host: that is greg from north carolina -- dakota. we have george from spartanburg, south carolina.

what you think about the brexit and the reaction from around the world? caller: i have some different opinions on it. i talked government and political science for about 25 years. as a matter of fact i got my masters degree from the university of south carolina in international studies. my thesis at the time, back in 1981, my thesis was the european economic community and the development of a common foreign policy. back then it was called the european economic community and later became the european community, and then of course the european union. thoughts in my mind about this whole thing. host: are any of those thoughts concerning -- any concern about how this could ripple in the united states, either economically or politically? caller: i think definitely,

maybe on both counts. but definitely from a political standpoint you might see something there because i do think that what you saw, as donald trump said yesterday in scotland, is people wanting to take their country back. one of the interesting things i did not know but i saw last night when britain or the u.k. voted to go into the european economic community back in the early 1970's, the percentage was 67% of the public voted in aber -- favor and only 33% were against it. that has been a big change from that to whether british people voted yesterday. i do think, getting back to your point, i think it indicates with immigration and the bureaucracy

in brussels of the european union and so forth, that is what a lot of the older british people were in favor of leaving. i think it definitely will have a ripple effect here in the united states. i think donald trump is the one that probably would benefit the most from it. host: that is george from south carolina. we have albert calling in from chicago on our democratic line. with the you think about the brexit and are you concerned about how it will affect people here in the united states? caller: yes, i am. i would like to congratulate britain and donald trump for his support of this monstrosity. we have $2 trillion lost globally and $800 billion lost just in the u.s. billion loss in the first

10 minutes. britain has gone from being the fifth-largest economy to the sixth-largest economy, all with one punch of a voting card. resigned, andhas that reminds me of a rat leaving a sinking ship. two weeks ago he did not -- donald trump did not even know what brexit was. host: let me ask you this question. one of the drivers of support for leaving britain were concerns about immigration in the u.k. immigration has soared considerably in the u.k. in recent years. those same concerns are being echoed by voters here in united states. do you see a difference between the two? caller: no i don't, unfortunately. britain says they want to take the country back. donald trump says he wants to take this country back. if he is elected, he will take this country back to the point

where we are living in caves. will notk because they be mexicans or foreigners in those caves. up next on the democratic line, we have theodore coming in from jamestown, kentucky. caller: i am here. host: what do you think about the brexit? caller: i think the thing that people don't realize is that they are going to be more people dropping out of the european union because the typical writers in the old days, that i used to read -- they say that the antichrist, and i think a lot of people know about the antichrist, they just don't know who he is. i don't know who he is, but he is going to come out of the common market. there are many countries in

europe belong to the european union. but i believe there's going to because more dropout the antichrist will come from that common market. i can see them dropping down to 10, and that's how close we are to our lord jesus christ, coming back. host: that is theodore calling in from kentucky. of next we have bill calling in from norfork, connecticut. hi, thanks for c-span. this is a victory for average people and poor people all around the world. way, the defeat which is starting of the new world order, if people remember that. againsts the defeat wall street, the bush's, hillary clinton, wall street, the , anded billionaires

especially the establishment corporate media, which feeds americans andny around the world. kool-aid.ust buy that the point is, people have got to understand -- what is the difference? , white orlege kid black, going to college, owes $100,000 and can't get a job, and he is a lefty. and he is against the right-wing hillbilly, who lost his work in construction and can't feed his kids. politically correct is ruining everything. host: let me ask you this. "guardian," it talks a little bit about the relationship between the united states and the u.k., one of its closest trade partners, and how this might hurt that

relationship. it's as the cold reality of britain's new establishment and its impact on relationships as washington has become clear when the president came to britain in april to come help make the case to remain. he warned if the u.k. left the eu, it would have to go to the ueue for deal like the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. do think that could hurt business owners here in the united states? average person is getting her right now. notand's currency, they are in the euro. one positive thing to happen for england is that the dollar dropped, and they could sell of theirs because cheaper pound. media,ain, this is the they want to start trade wars in

the country to get even with each other in britain, you will have a problem. but things could go on like they are, they are in nato. they are trading. ,ut when england doesn't want like germany took in one million refugees -- she was going to pay for that? calling inis bill from connecticut. we have a lot of callers wanting to chime in on the brexit. up next we have mandy calling in from lexington, kentucky on the republican line. what are your thoughts about britain's vote? caller: thank you for taking my call. , agree with theodore and greg and i want to congratulate the united kingdom for taking back their country. how long was england the country eu?ts own before the they didn't become an organization until the 1940's, to try and prevent world war iii. controly should have

over at the country's borders. they can't absorb all of those refugees coming in. it's affecting their economy, it's affecting their crime rate. back theiro take country, and i think they will be fine. i think the markets will calm down, everyone will calm down. the previous caller had said more will drop out. there will be more dropout. host: with all of this uncertainty, as it points out in the "question science monitor," -- "christian science monitor," it could mean a loss of britain's access to the world's largest market, and painstakingly hammering out new trade deals.

host: are you concerned that the upheaval and uncertainty that pose a problem, not just in europe, but also in the united states? caller: the upheaval and trouble that we have now from the middle east, i don't think that is nothing but a drop in the bucket. they are killing thousands of christians by cutting off their heads. and no one says a word, not even our pope, and i'm catholic. that makes me furious. if it was muslims being chopped off the heads, he would be right out there stopping it. i'm just fed up. to theirengland country back, and more going to drop out. they will be just fine. when everyone in this country in the world has to realize, they are not in control. our father in heaven is in control. he will take control. how do you think israel has remained a small nation surrounded by enemies waiting to

kill her? because god protects her, it is in the bible. host: that is sandy calling in from kentucky. of next we have lili calling in from jacksonville, florida. what do you think of the brexit and the reaction from around the world? caller: it is all protectable. all the republican colors are going to help trump. most of them now will mean anything. the only thing that matters is how does the effect the american economy? it has a downward effect on jobs , because come november, that is what americans vote on. they look at the job picture, and how it looks. the economy. host: the economy was one of the main reasons why those who supported exiting the european union went to the polls. caller: look what happened to

their economy. after the great crash that was caused by the united states greed.-- united states' austerity, we chose a stimulus package. we rebounded, their economy is in tatters. and the iraq war, george bush's war -- they went in on it. it was an absolute disaster. and remember, they are a socialist country. they have all the benefits and they had all those riots. i don't know why the prime minister put it up for a vote. they were already in revolution mode already. they just dropped out. is not united states of america. we are a different beast. europe is 87% white, the united states is only 56% white.

it's a hold of a ballgame. host: that is really calling in from jacksonville, florida. we are taking a look at some of the reaction to the brexit, including from senator bob corker of tennessee. shoulde a free people choose their own way, and we should respect the british decision to leave the eu. he gets a little more information on the brexit as well. we have lots of reaction coming in, including for our viewers. we have linda calling in from orange, connecticut on our democrat line. caller: good morning. i completely agree with the gentleman before me about they chose austerity. not only did they choose austerity, but they also cut education. and now we see the high price of ignorance.

country back, first of all, they are not going to maintain their country as is, because it's highly likely that northern ireland is going to want to stay in the eu, and scotland, who wants this day in the eu are going to vote for independence. they not get the country back, because they never lost it, but they are going to lose part of their union. secondly, the gentleman before me hit the nail on the head. comparing the british economy and population to the population of the united states is like comparing a watermelon to an orange. we are the number one economy in the world. and we have never had our sovereignty threatened in any way, shape, or form that we haven't responded as a nation. host: linda, let me ask you this about the economy. we are more and more a global economy, and the things that happened in other parts of the

world have an impact in the united states. caller: of course it does. we are a global economy because our economy invented things like automobiles, internet, all of those innovations came from the united states. medical research, all the things which tells us that we need to keep investing in education and we need to keep stimulating our own people. host: that is linda calling in from connecticut. calling we have johnny in from will sport, taxes on the independent line. texas.ot,. caller: i want people understand about my country. my country was native american for 3000 years. all of a sudden, immigrants came into our country, and they kept coming. they were spaniards, they were

irish, they were french, they they didn't stop coming into our country into we didn't have a country anymore. thank you, very much. you are not a slave, you are not even a black person, you are an american citizen. jim: up next, we have calling in from wisconsin on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. one of my questions i have is whenever people, the -- are-class people working, and you have people coming here that aren't, it puts a strain on the economy. people wantlem is, to take back everything. and you can't blame the people's vote. the vote of the people is the vote.

and whether or not people like it or not, that is what it is. we talked about there is so much uncertainty because this has never happened before. a fact a lot of the people seems not to fully understand what it was that was being voted on, does that raise concerns for you that perhaps there wasn't enough information about this? caller: no, not at all. if you would listen to the people, and a lot of the people that talk about it -- the fact of the matter is, they don't understand. they listen to what somebody else says instead of figuring out themselves understanding it. they go with what some real says, and that's what's wrong with america right now. i think the next election, you will see everyone complains about donald trump, but i tell you what, it's the people. don't ever forget that. the working people out there are paying the bills. host: that is jim coming in from wisconsin. this is leona from bellevue,

illinois. caller: good morning. my comment is concerning the situation with donald trump and scotland. ok. tv, and itng at link says of all the raw -- the hurrah of trump and his golf course, they did not give their opposition their voice. i don't think a lot of people know the land that he has someone,ed, they paid i feel, to the table -- a people lost their homes. a lot of people in scotland who lived on that golf -- point to be golf course, on that land were not going to leave. -- whenome kind of way i saw he had been granted that

land, i was like what? station ther on one voice of those people that lost their homes. host: that is linda calling of illinois. now we have sandy calling in from columbus, virginia on the independent line. good morning, sandy. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the brexit? caller: i think that the people of great britain are proud and noble, intelligent people. decided they didn't want someone from brussels deciding who, what, where, when, and why they could do business. great britain has been through a whole lot of junk over hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. back to the time of william the conqueror. great britain always found a way to get back on its feet.

i think they're going to be a much better off nation now that they have sovereign borders. they are not having to take orders from a bunch of eating ying yangs in brussels. host: we have european union's ambassador to the united states, david o'sullivan. and later on, timothy healy, the of the terrorist screening center will join us to talk about the u.s. terror watch list. stay tuned. ♪ >> on american history tv on c-span3. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. 1880's, youd of the had a dramatic upsurge, a tremendous surge in veterans

organizations, in the membership in these organizations, and in the statues that they create. >> university of georgia professor scott nesbitt discusses the ongoing debate over confederate war monuments and memorials, and how many were the result of campaigns by southern women during the reconstruction era, and ends the late 19th century. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind. back in 1976, mr. carter said trust me. and a lot of people dead. and now many of those people are out of work. alternative toan the biggest tax giveaway in history. camp roth.t reagan i call it a thing americans cannot afford. presidential

conventions, with ronald reagan becoming the gop nominee and president jimmy carter accepting the democratic nomination. on july 1, the smithsonian's national air and space museum will commemorate its 40th anniversary. sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts. >> in 1976, we were wrapping up a golden age of human exploration with the apollo missions to the moon. and we were launching into the first golden age of planetary exploration with the missions of mars, and to the outer planets. we are now in another golden age of planetary exploration, particularly on mars. >> we visit the museum with valerie neal, the head of the space history department. and learn about the story of human space exploration from the moon to mars. on the presidency, james rosebush, former deputy assistant to president reagan

and author of the book "true reagan -- what made ronald reagan great, and why it matters." as itave come to see this relates to president and, that a great leader of characters a -- character is a person who has the ability to see the future and lead people to it. >> for the complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> "washington journal," continues. host: joining us now is david o'sullivan, the european union ambassador to the united states to help us break down the impact of the vote to leave the european union by the u.k. this week. ambassador, thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: let's talk about the potential diplomatic fallout of this vote. what do you expect to happen

next? guest: we have a clear outcome from this referendum, and the rest of us note with regret that the british people have decided to leave the european union. opinion, theat european union is founded on democracy. procedure inear our treaties to allow a country which designs into longer which is to be a member of the union to withdraw. and is called article 50, the country notifies the other members of the union it wishes to leave. od of twoa maximum peri years which the separation is negotiated. the united kingdom has been a member since 1973, and the ties of links between the u.k. and the european union are considerable, economic, commercial, legal ties. all of this will have to be sorted out. aswill try and do this expeditiously as possible and developing new relationship with united kingdom, nonetheless as a member of the european family, an ally in nato, and still

intimately a part of european geography. host: let's talk about the nuts and bolts of this process, the divorce process in one way. guest: i'm not sure it's a perfect analogy, but i get what you mean. host: the eu, next week will get together to discuss the process for this. european union leaders will meet without the british counterpart david cameron on wednesday to discuss the quote unquote divorce process with london after britain voted to leave the bloc. why will david cameron not be there, and what might we see happen next week as this process moves forward? guest: next week, that will be a meeting in two parts. a meeting of the 28, which is the european council, the heads of state of government. david cameron will be there because the united kingdom is still a full member of the european union. i need to be clear about that. the vote on thursday did not have immediate legal effect.

and until such time as their new arrangements, the u.k. continues to be a member. now that we are managing the exit of the u.k., we also need to coordinate positions between the 27. this now will be a negotiation between united kingdom and the 27 other members. countries, those 27 are going to want to meet separately, having heard the premise or of united kingdom on tuesday, on wednesday they will meet separately to consider how they want to coordinate their positions when dealing with the u.k. going forward, on how to organize the withdrawal of united kingdom from the european union. host: is there a possibility that this withdrawal may not happen at all? technically, this referendum is not binding, correct? it's up to the negotiations to determine what happens next. is it a possibility that it may never come to pass? guest: i think that is most

unlikely. theare right that referendum in british legal terms did not have immediate legal effect. i understand it means an active vote of the u.k. parliament, ultimately. i think everyone in the united kingdom was clear that this is a binding referendum, and future governments will consider themselves bound by this. the outcome is clear. arerest of us, we considering this as a final decision. the negotiations over the next two years are about how to implement it, it's not about putting the decision in question. the british people have given a final verdict on this issue, and unfortunately, however much we may regret that, they're going to leave the european union. host: we are talking to ambassador david o'sullivan, the european union ambassador to the united states, about last week's brexit vote. he is from ireland, joining us today. the phone lines are open for callers to call in.

.emocrats, call (202) 748-8000 republicans, call (202) 748-8001 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. we have a special line for international viewers, (202) 748-8003. talk a little bit about the possibility of other fallout from this, such as scotland perhaps initiating its own plan to leave the u.k. other countries possibly following suit after the u.k. leaving the eu. what might we expect ahead, or do we know? guest: i don't think we know. there is a debate in the united kingdom, clearly this was a divisive referendum. whichever way it went, the people who were on the losing side role is going to feel unhappy.

there are many people in the u.k. who clearly regret this decision. but democracy rules by majority. i have seen that indeed there are discussions about how people in scotland or other regions may react. this is a matter now for the people of united kingdom. they will have to decide how they want to manage their own future, and we will see how that debate plays out. of thes of the rest european union, i don't think that there is a strong movement anywhere else in the european union to leave. of course, there will always be unhappiness and the satisfaction with certain aspects of european policy. some people will be critical. we are living through difficult economic times, still coming out of the recession. as a number of your viewers were commenting, pain has been felt by many people. people of lost their homes and jobs. there is a certain anger and frustration in the population of europe, as you have experienced

in the united states. and politicians will have to manage this and respond to this. believe in the european union, member states will also have to address these issues. i'm not implying that all is milk and honey in the european union these days. i still believe the other 27 member states firmly believe that the best future lies in the mentorship of the european union, which enables our individual countries to respond much better to these situations than they could if they were separate. mentioned, prime minister david cameron announced that he would step down by october. cameron was a supporter of remaining within the european union. let's take a look at what he said i'm out the need for fresh leadership after this vote. about the need for fresh leadership after this vote. [video clip] this inmeron: i fought the only way i know how, which is to say exactly what i feel,

head, heart, and soul. i held nothing back. i was clear about my belief that britain is stronger, safer, and better off inside the european union. the referendumr was about this and this alone. not the future of any single politician, including myself. but british people have made it very clear-- a decision to take a different path, and as such, i think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. i will do everything i can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months. but i do not think it would be right to me -- right for me to be the captain that steers this country to its next destination. this is not a decision i've taken lightly, but i do believe it is in the national best interest to have a time of stability, and then the new leadership required.

there is no need for a precise timetable today, but in my view, we should have a new prime mister in place by the start of the conservative party conference in october. host: do you agree that there needs to be fresh leadership to move forward? guest: i can't comment on british domestic politics. politics is a contact sport, i'm afraid. when a government proposes a referendum or makes certain recommendations, and that it is not followed, i appreciate that that creates a political situation. i think mr. cameron has made the decision he felt was appropriate. it will have to be a debate in the u.k., now that will be new leadership. this is a product of british to invest in politics, which of course, we watch with interest. but it is for them to decide. host: let's bring our callers into this discussion. calling in for more to park, new york. you are on with ambassador david

o'sullivan. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. ambassador. -- howraise a question does the european union react to trump,tements of donald the nominee to the republican party here in the united states? how does the european union react to the statement of mr. trump that nato has been supported disproportionately by ,he united states and that many if not most of the european nations that are required to have a certain percentage of their gdp slated for defense of their own nation, but most of these european nations have not appropriated the appropriate amounts of money for their own defense? host: let's give the ambassador chance to respond. guest: thank you for that

question, herbert. this is a lively discussion in europe, and will be more so in july. the nato member states, for whom i do not speak, but the nato members have committed to move d 2% of their gdp on defense. many are moving in that direction. they have not yet got there. this will be a discussion at the nato summit. i think the commitment has been taken and people are moving in that direction. these are not easy decisions for all the reasons we can imagine. i think this is the direction that has been decided and people are trying to get there. host: staying on concerns about security. there have a concerns and reactions that this may make britain and other european countries more vulnerable to attacks from isis and other radical groups. do you share those concerns? guest: i think a number of

security specialists in the run-up to the referendum pointed out that membership of the thepean union has placed u.k. better to participate in europe-white efforts for intelligence sharing and antiterrorist activities. i think the general sentiment was the continued membership of the union with serve that purpose. the decision has been made to leave and would love to figure out how to make security cooperation work. no one will want to lessen the cooperation. between a difference being in the european union and not being in the european union. that is the direction the u.k. has now moved. host: we have jarrett calling on the republican line from rochester, minnesota. good morning. is therey question thing quite a bit of speculation over the past couple of days that the united kingdom may have trouble negotiating new trade deals with the european union

and other independent countries. keeping in mind the united kingdom as the world's fifth-largest economy, what are the chances that will be any more difficult than any other trade negotiation? guest: the problem is currently the external trade united relations of the u.k. are handled by the european union. we are the largest destination for 80 countries. the comparable number for the united states is 20 countries. they will have to reinvent those trade relations with all the rest of the world. i don't know how difficult it will be but it will be complicated because they will have to create new trade relations with all the partners for whom the current trading relationship is defined by agreement between the european

union and that partner. a tradecally negotiation of this guy takes many years. the concern in united kingdom has been how they manage this transition? how long will it take before the clarity about the new arrangements? that is the challenge they will face. host: let's talk about some of the other challenges regarding this in the christian science voters here ines united states have been duly warned about the potential economic and political fallout of a brexit. they brushed those guns -- concerns aside about reading and immigration at the end of the day. the result is a major wake-up call on both sides of the english channel and the atlantic in a period of great political disruption and even fear given that a lot of the sentiment that was expressed by those who supported leaving the european

union in britain, those are similar to the ones being expressed here. the you expect to see a more global response similar to that of the voters of the u.k.? guest: i think the christian science monitor has accurately identified what is a common theme across the western world. i hinted at it earlier. the consequences of the financial crash, the pain and suffering which was felt by many people, their families and our economies. the recovery is underway but it is partial and it is uneven. not everyone feels that have benefited. this, i'm afraid is a common theme to be found all across the countries of europe, and i also hear it mentioned here. i think the challenge of politics is to respond to that. the real challenge is to respond in the right way. i think most of us would argue that reducing trade, closing

borders, closing doors to immigrants is not the right way. in fact, it is counterproductive. we have to persuade people we can address their concerns about this kind of measures. that will be a challenge. host: we are talking to ambassador david o'sullivan, the european union ambassador to the united states. the second eu ambassador to occupy the position with the u.s. since the treaty of lisbon was signed in december of 2009. up next on the republican line we have mark from springfield, ohio. you are on with ambassador o'sullivan. caller: good morning, mr. ambassador. one of the things i would , theon given the results media response in great britain. one has to keep in mind that the media can be a little bit biased. i give the voters of great britain far more credit than

they do as far as their deliberatede and concerns in the voting process. givenestion i do have is the way this took place, the polling took place prior to the vote. current members of the european union looking to vacate their responsibilities and their positions and the union itself? guest: no, i don't. i think the situation in united kingdom has always been a little bit special. the united kingdom was late to join european integration. there has always been a lively debate in the u.k. as the weather there real place was in europe or with a more independent stance. this has been ongoing for many years. we knew that when this referendum took place there

would be deeply divided views. there are strongly held views by people in united kingdom which ultimately won the day in this referendum that they should not be a part of the european union. i think the situation in the other member states is very different. the united kingdom was not part of the euro, or the free travel area. when you look at the 27 member states that remain in the european union, 19 are members of the euro and most of the others with a small exception of sweden have clearly indicated they wish to join the euro. most are members of the free travel area. when you look in the public opinion polls and other countries, you find support for membership of the european union remains very high. notwithstanding the fact that people of criticisms and i want to be clear about that. there is unhappiness with the economic situation, with other policies. there is always a lively debate.

i honestly do not believe it is likely that we would see a similar move to leave in other member states of the european union. host: but the vote to exit the european union by many people both in europe and united states was unexpected. it took a lot of people by surprise. why was it so surprising and does that maybe make it less likely we know whether other countries will follow suit? guest: kit was not so surprising for those of us watching the debate closely. the polls indicated a tight race. i think people were talking about a margin of a couple of percentage points one way or another. for those of us who know the u.k., and i have had a lot of dealings with the u.k. down through the years, we knew there was a very substantial volume of british opinion which has wanted to have this referendum and wanted the opportunity to express their support for

leaving for quite some time. it was never going to be a simple discussion. in the end it was a clear decision but let's be honest. 48%.0% -- there was a close race. it has come out with a result it has. i don't think if you look at opinion polls elsewhere in the european union you will see much higher percentages of people strongly supporting never should with the european union. democracy is sovereign. democracy is a fundamental value of the european union. if people were to move in that direction, they would have the right to do so. i really don't think i sense any strong movement in any other country who would feel that would be better off outside the european union than the are inside. host: david o'sullivan is the european union ambassador to united states. we have sam from florida on our

democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span and good morning. i would like to as the ambassador in his opinion why did prime minister cameron have this referendum that could of such global effects to the world economy? guest: maybe should as prime minister cameron. i'm not sure i can speak on his behalf. i'm going back to the point i was making earlier. there has always been a lively debate in the united kingdom about the benefits or not a membership with the european union. facenk the prime minister a situation in which is political party was deeply divided over this issue. and going into the last election many members of the conservative party wanted the idea of a referendum to be part of their platform. in order to maintain the unity of the party, mr. cameron felt

this was something to which he had to commit. if there was a conservative government, they would give the british people the opportunity to express their views on this issue. i think that's why this referendum came about. it was a result of domestic british politics and the fact there was a strong demand from a certain portion of the british population to have the right to have a say on this issue. that was why the referendum was held. they have reached their decision. host: there has been a lot of reaction to this from lawmakers in the united states. jim cooper of tennessee tweeted "europe needs british leadership. now both are hurt because they cannot get along. the session -- secession is not a solution." guest: i am tempted to agree. i think it is with great sadness that i view the fact that the united kingdom has decided to leave.

i think we are stronger together. i think the european union is a remarkable construction, one of the most noble political projects in the history of the world. building a new europe out of the ruins of two world wars and the holocaust through peace and reconciliation, offering a safe haven it countries emerging from totalitarian regimes. and the reunification of the continent after the fall of the berlin wall. these are remarkable achievements. we would have wished the british people would've continued with us on this journey. unfortunately, they've taken a different view if we will respect that and try to have a good relationship with the country with four main an ally, a partner, and close friend. host: we have mary from the democratic line from philadelphia. you on with ambassador david o'sullivan. caller: good morning, c-span and ambassador so that o'sullivan. until our bureaucrats realize

the impact of mass migration, mass immigration against the citizens of the country, it is very disheartening to think that the citizens have to impact all this at one time. it is impossible because it is a drain on the resources. it is a drain on their living conditions. their whole way of life. and for this to be forced on people based on this now profitzation, wars for in other countries, then you will have a negative effect. we need people that are entering our country, and this is including the united states, that is going to enhance, not to drain. host: let's give the ambassador a chance to respond.

guest: i think that immigration can be a huge benefit. if you look at the situation in the united kingdom for example, the people from the rest of europe who have moved to the united kingdom to live and work there make a massive net contribution to the british economy. they are providing valuable services. they are paying taxes. they are paying social security benefits and contribute to the cost of health care. and they are a net gain to the economy. of course, i fully understand that there can be concerns about immigration. it is different, but the refugee crisis and the asylum seeker crisis in europe is different to the free movement of people looking for employment and following the rules by which that can be done in europe. this creates a different tension. i agree this has to be managed. one thing seems to be clear. all of this is decidedly democratic institutions.

the rules about immigration, freedom of movement are decided democratically. there is a legitimate debate we have had between how we balanced the need for immigration, the need for bringing in additional skills, people willing to contribute to the economy, and the impact that can have on the people living in a country. in the u.k. there has been a string of public services, schools, health care. given the huge amount that immigrants contribute to the not be, he would complicated to use that money to expand and develop those public services so everyone can benefit from the advantages of a well-organized freedom of movement of people. i think we have to be sensitive to public opinion, but we should also be firm in explaining there are huge benefits from well-managed immigration policies. host: remind our viewers a little bit about the eu, why it was started and how it has changed.

--he --guest: the european union came wars, huge cost of life in human suffering. people decided we had to do a different way of doing business. as president obama said about america, we tried to build a better history for ourselves. we set out to cooperate and work together in ways that would make war unthinkable. and enhance the security and prosperity of our people. we started with six countries in the 1950's. we expanded to take in the united kingdom, ireland and denmark in the mid-1970's. we build a single market. we have the largest single market in the world. it's probably the largest economy in the world, depending on how you count it. we haveortantly completely eliminated the

likelihood of any conflict beginning to get in europe. we found a new way of doing business together. we are built on the principles of democracy, human rights, and freedom. if you look at the enormous transformation of the 10 former countries of the soviet union who entered the european union, they have seen and norma strides in prosperity moving towards democracy and human rights. and the european union makes it a norm is conservation globally. we are the largest contributor of development assistance in the world. the largest donor of humanitarian assistance. i think the european union has a story to tell about how we have built a different europe to that which people knew in the 20th century with the horrors of to what wars. -- two world wars. host: what about the health of the eu? how do you see the health of the eu being affected positively or negatively by the vote? guest: i think it is negative.

we regret the departure of the u.k. it is a pity. i am not going to say that somehow it could be of benefit. it is regrettable. we would be stronger with 28. the united kingdom is a very important and large member. they have contributed a lot to the european union. the paradox is they also influenced the direction of the european union. the european union looks more like the europe the u.k. wanted than the one they joined in 1973. but they have decided to leave. the rest of us will carry on and we will continue with the process of european integration. we will deliver benefits for our citizens through that process. and we will develop good, friendly family relationships with the u.k. in this new situation. host: we have christian calling on the independent line from connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i was watching the markets all day yesterday. i noticed that between the european countries the footsie -- ftse have the best day and it was 3% down. much better than france, germany, spain, italy and the rest of them. -- i findinteresting it understandable that people want to try to remove themselves from these central-bank economies. i know the ecb, the european central bank and market -- mario draghi are printing of a lot of money to buy $80 billion of bonds. these are private bonds, private corporate bonds. they are interfering in the private markets. at the same time they are constantly trying to keep these big loaded banks afloat. suissee bank and credit

are in deep trouble with derivatives portfolios. host: let's get the ambassador a chance to respond to that. guest: the first thing i have to say is united kingdom is a part of the eurozone. -- is not a part of the eurozone. they were never under the control of the european central bank. the european central bank is engaged in the same activities as the fed has here of stimulus, trying to maintain a level of inflation consistent with the objective of around 2%. i think that the european economies are recovering after a difficult time from the recession. all european countries and eurozone countries have positive growth in the region of 1.5% to 2%. my have in ireland with nearly 7% or 8% growth. we are seeing a turnaround from

the economic crisis but there are challenges ahead. i don't the benefits of that the recovery are felt get by our citizens and this will be a political challenge. host: one concern expressed by a lot of people supporting the brexit was concerned over immigration. those concerns have been echoed here in the united states. donald trump, who was in scotland, said they are happy. they are not happy with the people flowing into the country. mr. trump said well visiting his renovated golf resort. we are on the other side of the ocean, but the world is not so different. do you expect to see -- what you think about his comments md you expect to see more sentiments like that here and around the globe? guest: i don't want to comment on your election, fascinating though it is. my respect for my role. i will leave the americans to have their debate for their election.

i do think of the issue of immigration, as i have said, in the u.k. a lot of the immigration come from outside the european union, over which the u.k. had full control. all the evidence is that the migration taking place of europeans moving to the u.k. were people who were taking up active employment, working, paying taxes, paying social security comic contributed to the economy and conserving more than they were taking out of it. i am not sure the united kingdom will actually wish to cut off that important source of improved well-being. this will be for them to decide once the new relationship between the u.k. and the european union is decided. host: what about concerns in terms of security. are there concerns about the ability of immigration between the eu countries and the security concerns they risk? are they well-founded or overblown? think anyone has

expressed security about freedom of movement of people in europe. exceptionally, was not part of the borderless area of the shengin. there were cast for checks when you enter the u.k. whether by vote or by train or by plane. ishink the security potentially the issue people coming from outside the european union, and i think everyone agrees this is best addressed through intelligence sharing and cooperation through our intelligence agencies. we know the scourge of terrorism. we will fight it again. i'm sure we will continue to cooperate in that fight, whatever the relationship between the united kingdom and the european union. host: plaintiff randy on the republican line from virginia. you are on with ambassador david o'sullivan. caller: good morning. i think it should not be

surprising. given their history, but never felt like it was a part of the larger europe. they went on their own during world war ii. i think it is a vote against globalization in that i think britains felt like they were losing their identity. that is my comment. firstly, it was a relatively tight race. was a result there and i want to respect the result, there is still 48% of the british people who felt better off remaining. i think one of the remarkable things about the european union is we have managed a degree of integration while retaining distinctive identity. when you travel around europe, when i was in london i knew i

was in the united kingdom. when i was in copenhagen, i knew i was in denmark. you know it from the language, the culture, the feel of the country. i don't think the european union has tried to homogenize the european people into a single entity. the motto in the united states is e pluribus unim. the motto in europe is unity in diversity. we know are people with retained their distinctive national characteristics and we are capable of doing that while cooperating to do things better than we can alone at the national level. host: we have carol on the democratic line from texas. good morning. caller: good morning, ambassador. i have a couple of questions for you. basically three. thatuch of this, given

boris made openly racist andents and racial slurs, we have donald trump in america it was an open racist. how much of this do you think was field not just by anti-immigration but by open racism? that is my first question. host: let's stop it that because we're running low on time. guest: i think racism is a scourge. it is contrary to the fundamental principles upon which the european union is based. i think we must push back on racism. i think we must also recognize that not everyone who is critical about immigration is doing so from a racist perspective. there are legitimate concerns people can have. we have to be able to have that debate in a calm and measured way. we must absolutely avoid falling into the trap of xenophobia or racial hatred which can be promoted by some people. host: lucille is on the

republican line from northport, florida. good morning. caller: can boarding, ambassador o'sullivan. ii and ir world war agree withvery thing he said about why the eu was formed in the good it did. racist, and i am not a and i have been the europe but i see what is happening on tv over there. -- if theynts solidify the countries, it would have been fine. but they keep themselves separate. and everything the eu accomplished will blowup. you can't get the people that are there to become part of your countries. host: let's give the ambassador a chance to respond. we need to make

a distinction between the free movement of people within europe. the poles moving to united kingdom or irish people, the british people who moved to spain. i do think there is a problem of integration of fellow european citizens. i think that free movement has proved generally beneficial and is not created racial tensions. i think when you are referring to is people coming from outside the european union. frequently raps of a different religion or different origins. we had different greater problems of integration. i want to be very clear. that immigration is decided by individual countries. this is not decided at the european level. united kingdom is free to decide its own policy regarding immigrants coming from outside europe, as do all our member states. we have to make a distinction between these two different kinds of movements of people. and i having knowledge there are legitimate concerns about the impact which immigration can

have, but we must not lose sight of the huge benefits it brings to our society. setting this up entirely would leave us much poorer. the: david o'sullivan, european union ambassador to the united states. thank you so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: we will be talking to timothy healy, the former director of the fbi's terrorist screening center. he will be joining us to talk about the u.s. terror watchlist. and then dan griswold at george mason university will be here to talk about the fallout of the brexit vote on the u.s. economy. stay tuned and we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv has authored every weekend. here are some programs coming up this weekend.

today at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the angle roosevelt reading festival takes place at the fdr presidential library and museum in hyde park, new york. the festival includes author discussions about the 32nd president, roosevelt era politics and personalities, and histories of the oval office. featured authors include paul brandis discussing his book "under this roof." walter bornemann with "macarthur at war, world war ii in the pacific." david priest, author of "the president's book of secrets." marlene trestman with "fair labor lawyer, the remarkable life of new deal attorney and supreme court advocate betsy margolin." "1941:rtman, his book is fighting the shadow war." and alonzo handy with "man of

destiny: fdr and the making of the american century." cap 10:00 p.m., historian pamela hayden traces the history of guns and examines when and how they became part of american culture and her book "the cunning of america: business and the making of american gun culture." she looks at the business end of manufacturing and selling arms. she was interviewed by william doyle author of "american hunter: how legendary hunters shaped america." >> i think it strange to believe that the element of our gun culture that had a very most to gain by selling and promoting and celebrating their product is the very most invisible when we think about guns. much of the political talk today is exclusively about interpreting the second amendment. the gun industry has become almost invisible to the history. --on sunday at 10 co

10:30 p.m. eastern, marcia clark weighs in on the legal system and discusses her second career as a novelist. she is the author of the book "what defense." we spoke with her at the publishing industry's annual trade show, book expo america in chicago. washington journal continues. host: we are now joined by timothy healy from miami, the former director of the fbi terror screening center which he held from 2009 to 2013. good morning and thank you for joining us this morning. guest: good morning, kimberly. host: let's talk a little bit -- terror terrorist watchlist. what exactly is it? aest: the terror watchlist is

database of all known or suspected terrorists that the u.s. government has. it is run by the terror screening center which is administrated by the fbi. host: we are talking with timothy healy, the former director of the fbi terror screening center about the terrorist watchlist and why it is necessary and how one gets on and off of this list. it has gained increased attention in recent weeks with discussion of what -- legislation barring those on this list from buying firearms. can you explain a little bit about this list? it is not just one list. is that correct? it is a various kinds of list put together. can you talk us through how it works? guest: it started in 2003 by presidential directive. a consolidated the watchlist. there weren 2003,

probably a dozen or so different watch lists maintained by a dozen or so different agencies. list, consolidated the set up a process for screening, and when you encounter people to be able to coordinate the encounter. four, to make the list available to the department of homeland security, department of state, state and local law enforcement when they encounter a known or suspected terrorists. get started because of the challenges we had and the uncoordinated approach we had. it has evolved since then. host: a little bit more about this list. it is roughly one million individuals on the terror watch list. a little over 20,000 u.s. citizens are on that list. about 5000 americans are on the watchlist as of august, 2013. 250,000e an estimated

people on that list that have been recognized terror group affiliations. these are all numbers from the aclu. tell us a little bit about how one gets on the list and what the process is for getting off this list for people who don't have ties to terrorists. guest: what happens is there is a standard to get on the list: reasonable suspicion. standard we adopted back in 2003 to basically create a process to get someone on the list. when there is a regional suspicion of -- reasonable suspicion, they will nominate their name to the national center. if it is a domestic terrorist, he will be nominated to the fbi. they will go three screening process. the national counterterrorism will look at that and see if that individual meets the reasonable suspicions and it. they open up a file.

then we go back to the agency and say we need more information about the individual. if you think of it like a bucket, when someone throughout the federal government is identified as a known or suspected terrorists and go sit ntc ---- it goes to nctc's bucket. they will start building up. once it reaches reasonable suspicion standard, it will go to the terrorist screening center. if the agency is reviewing it, they will have a two or three person review. it will go to nctc and they will go have a review. then it will go to the terrorist screening center and have a review. if that individual is qualified for the no-fly, it's a second review and a third review. the watchlist is a group of different names and different lists.

the no-fly list is a smaller portion of that terrorist watchlist. they are not allowed to fly. host: we are speaking with timothy healy from miami, former director of the fbi terror screening center and currently -- serving thef department of defense, the federal law enforcement communities with conference of strategies and operations, information technology and cyber security technology. you can find out more about the website, ican.com which you can reach online. abouts a little bit more the impact of legislation that might deny people who are may play outs given the fact that not everybody on this terrorist list necessarily has ties to terrorism. is that going to be a tough job

for federal officials to try to figure out who poses a threat and who does not? guest: first of all, everybody on the watchlist, with some exceptions, has some kind of ties to terrorism. to be on the watch list you have to have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is either known or a suspected terrorists. that is the first thing. the second thing with the legislation about specifically the gun legislation, the no-fly list and no purchase of a gun, the challenge with that from my perspective and trying to administer the list is the no-fly list is a very specific isteria that the individual traveling from point a to point b to conduct a terrorist attack or wants to use an airplane to connect a terrorist attack. you have to have that information. if you have information, that

goes on a no-fly list. the terror watchlist is fluid. if someone says this individual is a known or suspected terrorists and you get one or two people that say that, or the information indicates that, there will be -- they will be watchlisted. the fbi will initiate an investigation. and a day or two that information they got may not be relevant. it may not be accurate. the person may get on or off the list in a matter of days. equally, if we have information this individual was to blow up an airplane, he or she may go on the no-fly list and then they get pulled off a day or so later because the information did not pan out. director mueller when he was head of the fbi, his philosophy was any relevant or pertinent information about a known or suspected terrorists we will run to ground. terrorist watchlist is used

as an intelligence tool and a screening tool to make sure we keep americans safe. of the screening center, you are always concerned about the balance between civil liberties and protecting the american people. the challenge i have with it is it is a very fluid list. two, there isn't a constitutional guarantee that you can fly. that is not an issue. if i have got information that an individual wants to blow up an airplane, he may miss a flight. on the other side of the coin, if the individual hits on a plane the worst that can happen is they can take down a plane. i have a challenge. i can see there would be a challenge in terms of administering the list if you tie the nose -- no fly list to a gun list. buying a gun is a constitutional right. there is due process associated with this. there are challenges. host: james comey told congress last year that denying gun sales

to those who are suspected terrorists could "blow his agent's investigation into potential terrorists." the you agree that is a concern? hest: if an individual knows has watched, he will change the way he does business. he could change the way he does business and make it difficult to monitor and be able to protect. i do agree with that. again, you are trying to balance civil liberties against due process and protecting the american people. it is a tough balance. if an individual knows he is being looked at, he will act differently. the purpose of the no-fly list and the purpose of the watchlist is to make sure we have a coordinated approach. as an example, and the american people don't generally know this, i testify to this a number of times. it is open source information.

the terrorist screening center in 2013 we averaged 75 positive encounters with known or suspected terrorists every day. every day we encountered a server -- terrorist 75 times. the process is the screening center takes the list, make sure the individuals should be on the list, and then they forward the list of law-enforcement officers, the department of state, department of homeland security. when they encounter a known or suspected terrorists, they rejected the screening center and call. the terrorist screening center confirms this is the guy or this is not the guy. if it is, they coordinate the law enforcement approach. they will reach out to the case your individual, your suspect was encountered on the miami ridge. -- bridge. he was stopped by the police. what do you want us to do? they will coordinate whatever the approach may be.

it may be don't do anything. it may be arrest him. it may be i want to gather intelligence. it is a very coordinated approach. and it works.

-- to have an independent audit information that we need out here in the country. by ahe fbi the audited totally independent organization? host: you can respond. guest: thank you for your service. second of all, since i was at the terrorist screening center, i was there when it was initiated back in 2003 until 2006. i was fortunate enough to come back in 2009 to be as director. i was in the fbi 27 years and have never had so much oversight in my life than the times i was at the terrorist screening center. the tsc is audited on a regular basis by the inspector general. it is the inspector general of the department of justice, the

department of dhs, the department of state. all those agencies have freely audited the terrorist screening center. you can google the recommendations. they came back with a number of recommendations about how we can do it better. --y also, omitted the fbi complemented the fbi. we have really improved the process and improved the quality. process a regular audit . it is independent and very effective. host: we have ryan from washington on our independent line. you are on with timothy healy. caller: good morning. have beenned that we dealing with this for how many

years since 9/11, 2001. we don't seem to have -- iagency communications will say perfected. that is way out there. i will use the example of the on the weekendo before super tuesday. ted cruz had a rally on saturday. the minister that lead the prayer at the cruz rally was shot on sunday. that man was able to drive across the state of idaho, get on an airplane in boise, idaho, fly across the nation, get to the white house fence and be arrested. my question to you is why we don't have an amber alert when we have a situation such as the one that happened in idaho that

all the agencies wouldn't have the amber alert go off so that -- i will call it a domestic terrorist, that guy should have been stopped in the boise airport. host: let's get timothy healy a chance to respond. guest: in a case like that, and i'm not familiar with the case. i was in the law enforcement agency when that occurred so i'm not familiar with the details. in any case for the individual is involved in a crime and they are identified, that would go up. that address would be taken care of. it's not really an amber alert but there is a bolo going out. you can be satisfied with that. again i've been

in the fbi 27 years. my involvement in the terrorist screening center was about seven years of that. i can tell you i have never seen such coordinated effort in my life. there is no agency that once they have information about a known or suspected terrorist that they don't share with somebody else. and just the process when somebody gets watchlisted, the national counterterrorism center will reach out to different agencies and say give us the information you have. they freely given information. and coordinate the approach. terrorism and the terrorism watchlist and screening process, i can tell you for my personal experience i have never seen such a coordinated effort in the government in my life. host: we are speaking with timothy healy, former director of the fbi terrorist screening center and current president of -- which provide conference of strategy, technology and cyber security capabilities to federal

agencies. timothy, according to a report by cnn and a report issued by o. about gun lists, it says nine in 10 people the list who sought guns were approved in 2015. given your concerns about the rights to those who might be on the list, at the same time we have people who want to seek guns. they can get very easily. how do you balance the two competing concerns? guest: a couple of things. when someone on the list attempts to purchase a gun, when they runthe gun check it against terrorist watchlist. that case agent is notified that the individual is trying to purchase a gun. in those cases, the case agent

then will coordinate with the fbi regarding if there is that would not allow the individual to buy a gun. specifically if they are convicted felon or have some type of order against them. if they are a non-us citizen. in those cases they were able to preclude the individual from purchasing a gun. in the other situations they want. that is -- they were not. that is accurate. have you balance it? my concern is with the list being so fluid, tying it to the no-fly list, if that would adversely affect the bad -- the no-fly list, that is a bad thing. if that makes it a slower process, in my opinion that is a bad thing and unsafe for the american people. i would offer a solution that you create a separate list and have the no gun list.

on the no gun list of the watchlist you require the agent to provide a probable cause statement and take it to a judge and say this is why i don't think this individual should have a gun or be able to buy a gun. that way i think you have a balanced approach. not everyone on the no-fly list will be on the no gun list because they will not have enough information. there were situations subject of the no-fly list that i believe, based on what he knew about them, i could write enough information to a judge and say this is why i don't think this individual should purchase a gun. it is a balancing act. my position would be if you want to tie a purchase of a weapon to the terrorist watchlist they create a separate list, a separate criteria for that. on that particular list you have the opportunity to either go to a court or a judge like you would for search warrant and say this is the information i have an this is the probable cause.

purchasing a gun or protecting your house against unreasonable search and seizure is a constitutional right. flying on an airplane is not a constitutional right. one is lower than the other. i don't want to lose -- my concern would be to lose the effectiveness of the no-fly list because it. we have been able to keep people off airplanes. host: levy see if i understand what you say about the proposal of a no gun list. how would that be different about concerns about the constitutional concerns of people on this list in their ability to get off that list? have a concerns for no gun was be different for me concern for no-fly list? guest: the no gun list, it makes sense if you are on the watchlist off to buy a gun. but you need a higher standard in my view. this is just my opinion. you need a higher standard to allow -- to ensure someone

cannot purchase a gun. you need due process. if you have that and you take the information you have similar to a probable cause statement and taken to a judge, the judge would say this is the information we have and this guy is on the no-fly list but he is this, and if he purchases a gun we would like to prevent that. that is what ever recommend -- what i would recommend. and have you get off the list. people get off the list every day. when we screen people we go through a quality -- we used to go through a quality assurance process that every day that list is that it -- vetted. every month the no-fly list was vetter to make sure the information is still valid. we are constantly looking at that. is the case still relevant? does it make sense? within thecess

terrorist screening center occurs every single day. the reason is simple. we have limited resources, limited time, and we don't want to waste time. if you don't belong on the list, you should not be on the list. two, if individuals think they are on the list, there are avenues they can go -- an administrative process is reviewed for them to get off the list. it's with the department of homeland security. if you google it, it will give you instructions about how to apply for that. the department of homeland security and the terrorist screening center work hand-in-hand. reportone files a trip and says i believe i am on the watchlist, can you process the off? we look at that every single day and the votes of the terrorist screening center will get those in go to the process to see if this person is on the list, if

they are not. if not, the full them off. it's an avenue that individuals can go to if they think they are on the watchlist. host: we have charles on the democratic line from new orleans. you were on with timothy healy. good morning. caller: good morning. personal family experience with test not the no-fly thing, but homeland security. a close family friend of mine sometime last year, a young man met a comment online in the privacy of his home about the presidential candidates. homeland security pay him a visit to his house. i am witnessing this. these things are already consolidated. they were very threatening. guns and everything drawn. they seized the computer because

he said something they did not like under the term of terrorist speech. you have all this conversation about -- this is been over a year. he does not take airplanes and he is on the no-fly list. now this information has handed to the fbi and he is on that list. all he did was make a comment that was unsavory to somebody else's opinion. host: let's get timothy healy and chance to respond to this concern. inst: you talked about making a comment about a candidate. i don't know if it was a frightening comment, but the secret service in terms of candidates for president or the president will investigate every single potential threat. it sounded like basing your description that was applicable. , sitting in my chair at the terrorist screening center,

a lot of people believe they are on the watchlist. the reality is they are not. people that go through screening, there is a number of different tools and a number of different algorithms that the tsa uses to pull people how to do additional screenings. i hope she is not watching, but my mother who was older than me, when i was at the tsc said i am on the watchlist. i can't confirm or deny if you are on the watchlist mom, but i don't believe you are. when i asked her questions about did you pack your bags, she said no and got additional screening. he was an't -- for algorithm and she got additional screening. this screening process and the protection that the different agencies before the american people is a layered approach. you could get screened and detained at the airport and it has nothing to do with the

watchlist. it could be an algorithm or plethora of different things. when folks tell me i got on the i would generally like to ask a few questions. are you a u.s. citizen? the probability of you being on the list is remote. if you've never had discussions about wanting to take down an airplane, it is very remote. me they are on the watchlist, ipods because -- 99 times out of 100 they are not. when we look at the number of trip complaints they came in of people that thought they were on the list, the number of people that filed a report that said i believe i'm on the watchlist was like .04%. it was a very small percentage, and those are people that filed a trip complaint that said i believe i'm on the watchlist.

the percentages of being on the watchlist is very small. generally, when the public believes they are on the watchlist, they are not. host: talking about more numbers according to the people on the terror watchlist who seek to buy guns. they make up a very tiny proportion of all gun sales. it shows numbers over the years. the most recent figures from 2015. of the more than 23 million background checks conducted prior to a gun sale, only 244 came up as a match on the terror watchlist. 21 were denied these transactions. a little bit more perspective about the number of people on this list. we have laura from michigan on our independent line. you are on the timothy healy. caller: good morning. i have a statement i would like

to make any question about an urban myth. in this time of heightened awareness of guns, people that say they want to keep guns in their homes for protection i find that people who want to break into someone's home really .on't want to have anyone there that is my statement. my question is about an urban myth, which i believe to be an urban myth. when ted kennedy was found on the no-fly list, is that an urban myth? you hear every once in a while when they bring up the list. if indeed that was true, i'm sure his name was removed. he had been put on there as a one other thing.

i see that you have aclu. do they monitor the list or are they called in in case a person has a problem? host: that is a lot to unpack. let's let timothy healy unpack it. guest: ted kennedy was never on the watch list. that situation occurred when i was involved in the terrorist screening center. it was actually a name similar to ted kennedy that was on the watchlist. individual -- the individual was not really on the watchlist. he had inadvertently brought bullets with him when he was going through the screening process and was on an airline no fly list because of that was the confusion there. no. if you cool, "no-fly list ted kennedy," you will see that

information. the way i described it is the way it actually occurred. it was not ted kennedy, senator. it was someone with a similar name and that individuals not on the watchlist, they were on an airline no-fly list because he had inadvertently brought bullets with him. the aclu is not given a copy of the list. the aclu has been involved in litigation against the terrorist screening center representing folks who believe they are on the list. fbi are working with the and the judicial process in that. that is their connection. host: we talked earlier about director comey expressing some concerns about the no-fly list and blowing investigation. the rep. lynch: came out and said the opposite of that, saying, the obama administration does support denying firearms

rorls to those on the ter watchlist. does that cause any concern for you ? idea of not allowing an individual who is a terrorist to buy a gun is, i think, a smart idea. i agree with both sides of it. you have to, in purchasing a weapon, i think it is necessary to apply due process to that. i would not tired to the no-fly list because it worked. say it isnt to relatively easy to put someone on the no-fly list, but if i have information that this person wants to travel from point a to point b to blow it on ag up, i can put quickly.

i think you need a balanced approach. if you create a separate segment and call it the no gun list and inject some due process to that, i think it is a fairly decent balance. that does not mean that everyone on the no-fly list will be on gun list.- on the no suggeststrongly injecting some due process, number one. number two, get the people on the street actually working at and have different agencies, which is what we did when we came up with the watchlist a process. we call the agencies together and said, how do we do this best? house we didhite it with. we sat down and said, here is the manual for terrorism screening. every agency agreed.

my strong suggestion would be create a separate no-fly list. inject some due process so they can stand the scrutiny of a lawsuit. trevorp next we have from new york. caller: talking about being on or off the watchlist, do you think the fbi dropped the ball in the case of the orlando nightclub killer. they seem to have interviewed him a couple of times and cleared him to buy guns. guest: first of all, whenever a terrorist attack occurs, if we have not prevented it, then we have somehow failed. i failed. law enforcement failed. just by nature of the fact that

this terrible incident occurred, we failed. that is one. with regard to the watchlist and to help people get on and off, this is a good example. ,here was some information again, based on what i read, that indicated this guy could the unknown or suspected terrorist. i think back in 2013 he was put on the list. there are levels of investigative efforts that you are allowed to do. interviewingand the subject is the last thing they do to say the information is not valid. it appeared to me that they looked to him, put him on the list, and in 2013 pulled him off the list because there was not enough information to keep him on the list. secondly, it came up in 2014 or a year later, and they looked at him, and there was not enough to .eep them on the list if he has nonetheless, he would

obviously, if you went out and purchased a gun, that process would not have worked. thatone on the watchlist attempts to get a gun, they call us and say, is there any way to prevent that? did they sell? yes, very unfortunately. i will tell you, from my experience, there is not a law enforcement officer that would not want to prevent this. in every caseal that is open, you have agents that were close and are reviewed by supervisors and then headquarters -- that went through a significant review process to open and close. weis very unfortunate, but cannot read minds. you look at the facts and the

evidence, and continue with a terrorism case, or you don't. we cannot read minds or the hearts of people to say, is this guy going to do what he's going to do. unfortunately, with the inability, some people get hurt. it is tragic. all law enforcement officers have a real difficult time with that, especially this one. host: in response to that in orlando specifically, we have seen the movement in congress. filedp of lawmakers have a bill identical to the one introduced by susan collins in the senate. it would prevent certain travelers from boarding flights and a separate list preventing firearms.m buying for

what do you think about this compromise legislation? guest: i have not had a chance to read it. i'm not sure what the details are. again, my suggestion would be if you create a separate list and inject some due process to that, i would be comfortable with that . host: we have gloria calling in from brooklyn, new york. for taking myyou call. i am sitting here listening, and ,irst of all, i want to say thank you for preventing 75 accidents that could of happened. i wonder, people who go to shooting ranges or white

supremacists who have tons of guns, or the fact the colorado killer, homegrown, sandy hook, homegrown, charleston, homegrown. i know you cannot read minds, but why focus on certain groups? guest: thank you. there is international terrorism and domestic terrorism. can assure you that the fbi, von enforcement, the joint terrorism task force focus on all of that. the international side and the domestic side. anas heavily involved in investigation in the 1990's. it was a white the premise -- white supremacists group terrorizing montana. yes, the span of investigative effort is significant and spend both domestic and international terrorism. host: up next, we have brian

calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. mentioned -- while i was on the phone i heard it -- ted kennedy. my understanding was he was on the no-fly list and had trouble getting off. i heard a little bit of you talking about that before were you made it sound like he got on and off quite rapidly. guest: he was never on. the senator was never on the no-fly list or watchlist at all. from next, mark calling ohio on the republican line. you are on with timothy healy. caller: good morning. .irst, i want to thank you i am a veteran marine and

officer. working for the united nations in a diplomatic service position. guest: thank you for your service. caller: it was truly an honor. i'm going to kind of put you on the spot. we had issues in gathering on whatence depending group we got the intelligence from. politics and virtually played a major role and was quite disruptive. , politicssituation haveolitical correctness created substantial roadblocks in the ability to actively and

accurately complete investigations. how would you respond? guest: in terms of our law enforcement effort and the terrorist screening center and the watchlist in process and in terms of the screening process and how weak handle being counter processed, political correct has had nothing to do with it ever. i was fortunate enough to work with both administrations, the bush administration when we opened the center, which i thought was a brilliant idea. when i was director from 2009 to 2013, i worked with the obama administration on a regular basis with the watchlist. i can tell you, in my view,

there was really no difference in the administration with regard to terrorism. the rhetoric going back and forth is whatever it is, but i can tell you, no one wants a terrorist attack. both administrations and both want forth the agencies want to make sure that we do what we can to make sure we prevent a terrorist attack. we make sure we do whatever we need to do and work whatever hours we need to work to compass that. host: next, we have caitlin calling from maryland on the impact line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. a quick question on this proposed alternative to have just a no gun list. with that, in your view, -- should that cover internet gun sales and gun shows as well? guest: i think all of those

sales get screened. they talk about the gun shows. gun or two at a gun show, and it goes through the screening process. the ones that don't are the private citizens who privately sell a gun to someone else. that is i think the gun show loophole. it is not the vendors selling the guns. again, i do not read the legislation, i would assume it is all the normal screening process for guns. lou.: up next, you are on with timothy healy. caller: it is an honor to speak with you. my comment is i think a lot of our state and local police could help the fbi but they are tied up with traffic enforcement, which could be in most cases

automated o like they have in europe. two, 80,000 americans are arrested for prostitution related activities every year which ties up a huge amount of our resources. wwhy do we not just legalize prostitution and let the police help the fbi look for terrorism? resources enforcement are always challenging. in my timehallenging in the fbi. i will tell you, with regard to terrorism and terror investigation, the fbi has led the joint terrorism task forces that involve multiple federal agencies and multiple state and

local agencies. those efforts throughout the coordinatedtruly approach is an effective in working terrorism cases. we have done that for many years in the fbi. i do not see that being an issue. again, i mentioned before, i have never seen such a cooperative effort between law enforcement, state and local, the department of state, the department of homeland security, tsa. i've never seen such a cooperative effort. met the directors of tsa, department of homeland security, state, and locals. it is by far the most coordinated effort i've ever been involved in. crimes,ard to the other those investigated by state look those -- and locals and those

are their decisions. with terrorism, it is an unprecedented effort that i am proud to be part of. host: timothy healy, former director of the fbi terrorist screening center and current icam.dent of next, daniel griswold to talk about the fallout of the brexit vote on the u.s. economy. on "newsmakers" this week, jeb hensarling of texas met recently with donald trump to explain his bill to replace the dodd frank law. reporters talked to him about

the meeting and the replacement legislation. you can see the entire interview this sunday at 10:00 and 6:00 p.m. on c-span and c-span radio and online at c-span.org. we will be right back. after you've rolled out this .ill, you met with donald trump he indicated that he will be putting forth a plan that he describes as dismantling got frank. i'm curious how your conversation with him went. should we expect an alternative approach from him? for thenot speak man. i had an occasion to meet with him. all i can say is i think he received the briefing well. i want him to understand that house republicans have worked on a plan to understand the basics of the plan to take sure that washington is held accountable and wall street is held

accountable. i did not ask him to endorse the plan, by think he was pleased with what he heard. should he be president, i think we have a lot of opportunities to work together. >> how much effort have you put forth in trying to reach bipartisan support for your bill? why not do it as a standalone? >> number one, i'm proud of the fact that we have gotten 41 bipartisan bills signed into law. we probably do more bipartisan work than just about any committee. they view it as something that came down from mount sinai.

it is very difficult to work with them. behind closed doors they know it is hurting credit opportunities for americans. it seems to be a brand protection. you have people like elizabeth side. on the senate facts get in the way. >> the hard-fought 2016 primary season is over with historic conventions this fall to follow. watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a political party and the first non-politician in several decades. listen on on c-span, app.

you have a front row seat to both conventions on c-span all beginning monday, july 18. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is daniel griswold. program on the american economy and globalization where he served as codirector. thank you so much for joining us today. guest: i'm very glad to be with you. host: we are trained the conversation to brexit. we want to talk about the economic impact of the brexit here in the united states. we already saw the markets react tumultuously.e -- what might we see in the days and weeks to come? guest: i think the markets have settled down. after all, not much is going to happen.

it could be a two-year process for britain to negotiate the exit from the european union. this will play out over time. i think the impact here in the united states will be pretty limited. there are longer-term effects which i'm sure we will talk about. host: as we returned to the discussion of brexit, we remind viewers that you can call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 745-8002. we do have a special light for international viewers, (202) 748-8003. in the christian science monitor, there is a piece that calls the victory for brexit at the affiant protest against globalization. is that how you see it? guest: i don't. i understand the frustrations of the british people with the unaccountable bureaucracy in

brussels. this really is a leap into the dark. i think it was the frustration over bureaucracy and not globalization. britain has a trading tradition. it was really about and french impoverishment from brussels. unprecedented. we have never seen anything like this before. economy in thest myropean union withdrawing -- fear is that our british friends will come to regret this decision. president obama talked about this at the global object numeral should -- entrepreneural conference. [video clip] shrunk.orld has

it. of you are accelerating evokeschallenges and concerns and fears. part of why the summit has been so close to my heart, something i have been committed to because i think you represent the outside of an interconnected world. all of the optimism, the hope, and the opportunity that the interconnected world represents. to findso important ways in which we are expanding and broadening the benefits of the connection. host: do you believe that the

presents challenges? guest: let's take the immigration -- issue. that was central in the debate in britain. i was there for two weeks. about mass immigration. it is about freedom of citizens within the european union to move. accepting other union.from the european britain is doing quite well. the top three countries sending immigrants to great britain are poland, ireland, and germany.

there is a reciprocal ankle. there are 1.2 million british citizens working and living in other eu countries under the terms of the european union. the status will be in jeopardy as well. aspect ofrticular globalization, i believe that despite the rhetoric, written will lose out eventually. host: on the issue of immigration, speaking here in the united states, in this presidential year, the gop candidate, donald trump, has said that what happened in the u.k. is happening here about things like immigration.

you agree with that? guest: i think that is some truth to that. i think if you examine it those fears are largely unfounded. -- because ofates immigration in the flow of ideas and human capital. arguablyhy london is the financial help. people have come from all parts of the world to work there and live. i think well that will not change dramatically, i think london will be relatively less attractive as a global hub for economic activity. host: on the independent line, we have william calling in from illinois. you are on with daniel griswold. caller: yes. here, immigration thing,

america is made up of immigrants . we haven't immigrant chine to thefor president right now, .onald trump here he is, a rich, scottish man going all over the country not concerned with the people. host: do you have a specific question for daniel griswold? caller: on the immigration thing, how can we label immigrants that were born on the mexican-american? makes i think the caller a valid point. it is ironic that donald trump

was over in scotland, mentioning his mother's scottish roots. this is a similarity between the united states and great britain. we are two countries open to the world in terms of trade, and relatively open in terms of integration and two countries economically.ll compared to the rest of the world, the united states and great britain are among the economy.the global i think trade and immigration, openness to capital, ideas, that is part of the success story. i would hate to see that put into jeopardy in britain or the united states because of some type of nationalistic backlash. host: we are talking about globalization of the economy, what has been a big driver of the globalization in recent years? guest: governments have gotten out of the way so that people can trade more freely. technology, the fact that we can

trade freely around the world. isn't it wonderful? travel is becoming more affordable. we celebrate technological advances that make it easier for people to communicate, travel, trade, do this is with each ,ther, and yet, our politicians at least some of them, want to make it more difficult to engage in that. i think you saw that in some of the brexit debate. host: up next, we have larry. you are on with daniel griswold. good morning. caller: i would like to know what your opinion is on how shortselling on wall street affected yesterday's drop. it seems that at some point you stock before you sell it. i think it is time to put an end to it. it is simple. if you do not own the stock, you

should not be able to sell it. guest: i'm not an expert in financial transaction. i think the volatility, there's volatility, there's not a problem there. the book is in london had 90% odds that they would remain, get, they were proven wrong. there is a shock factor. it will settle down. it will be a two-year extended process as britain disentangled itself from this relationship. i have no problem with how the markets react. to me, the problem is the longer-term consequences for great britain of removing themselves from the european union. there will be some affect the united states and the european union itself and the global economy. i think we will see those ripple

affects unfold over the next 2-3 years. host: yesterday, when paul ryan was speaking, he talked a little about concerns about the economic uncertainty of the brexit. let's take a look at what he said. [video clip] >> obviously, the market is when information like this occurs. i think they will eventually stabilize. point number two, all the more reason for america to lead. the world wants america to lead your with a tax reform plan, reading.ill clearly be in the ways and means committee, they had to make a decision. to stick with the current system or do we have a plan that leapfrogs and leads the rest of the world? this is a plan that leads the rest of the world. in all of these moments of possible uncertainty, having

strong american economic the ship is in need. this does that. host: do you agree it is up to american leaders to play a leadership role in the post brexit world? guest: i agree with speaker ryan. let's talk about the trade aspects. half of britain's trade is with the continental of europe. right now, they enjoy the benefits of being inside the european union, having duty-free access to the whole european market. this is going to be put in jeopardy. you are already think u.s. companies like j.p. morgan chase saying they want to transfer thousands of jobs to the continent. negotiate a trade agreement with the european union. i don't know if you saw the

quote yesterday from the president of the european commission. he basically says he wants to start negotiations right away. he says this will not be an divorce. once britain is out of the european union, we should negotiate a free trade agreement . i think negotiations would go well. we have negotiations going on right now. partnershiplantic -- we should negotiate one with great britain. that would be the best thing we can do. one other affect

the united states is i think the european union will be a more inckly negotiating process the future. they are already difficult to deal with and they will not have moreating influence of a european union. host: up next, we have connie. caller: good morning. i think the brits were right to exit. they were strong. we will be there for them. i think the people have no

business determining what everybody else does. i'm tired of people coming into our country with no background. they come over here and get on the unemployment line and get all the social networks that they can to live here. guest: i agree with the caller to the extent that the world is not going to come to an end. i think the british will do fine. they are the trading nation and .he have an important place i'm confident that they will thrive. to i think britain will miss some

of the significant advantages of being in the european union. guess, there will be some advantages being outside, but we insidenot overlook being as well. martin wolf writes that the decision will be costly. guest: mark wolfe is one of the most respected voices on the european union.

the effect on the united kingdom it interestingt that donald trump was in scotland on friday. he sent out a tweet and said, they arrived in scotland, took their country back just back.e will take america no surprise there. the people in scotland, 62% of them voted to stay in the european union. scottish leaders will have a reasonable argument to say they don't want to be dragged out of against theirnion will. before long, you will see another referendum in scotland

for the rough -- their independence. i can get very well will pass. another interesting aspect is northern ireland. the people of northern ireland floated to stay in the european union. that is an interesting case. while they are a separate entity, have an open border between them. they will now have an international border that will require custom service and integration. seein 5-10 years, you could the united kingdom of england and wells with international borders with scotland. i agree this is not just an economic issue.

it will tear apart the way we know it. from "the herald," talking .bout scotland we will see continued fallout from this vote. withmorning, you are on daniel griswold. caller: many people are calling areaying that the british taking their country back. they do not realize that britain has never had open borders. europeans cannot pour into britain without checks and balances. this immigration presentment -- thentment has gone on since

since britain0's opened it stores to former colonies. goes back tot them. they did not want all of these black and brown people coming into their countries. host: give daniel griswold a chance to respond. guest: the caller makes a point. britain has been dealing with immigration issues for a long time. my wife is from the manchester area. we go back to visit frequently. there are a lot of very successful families who immigrated from pakistan, bangladesh. they belonged to the european union. it is not an issue that springs from the european union membership. england is not a party to the

agreement that other european union countries along to. britain can decide right now who enters from outside the european union. this is not an issue of middle eastern immigration or something like that. immigrantsnk having from poland, germany, or even romania is an issue. just goe doing work -- to britain, you will see it is prosperous and thriving. yes, it has problems, but immigrants are playing a final of a market-based economy. calling.have steve good morning.

caller: i was hoping he could i'mk to the thinking that sure is similar in the united states, a lot of these immigrants are coming in and wagesay be driving down so the average working guy who is struggling and has been losing the economic strengths for many years, it seems to be culminated now. you want to blame it on the immigrants -- something is happening, we are losing jobs. host: let's give daniel griswold a chance to respond. guest: the impact of immigration on the u.s. is maybe a discussion for another day. we can easily take up the whole hour. let me focus on britain. i think the same lessons apply

the united states. accepted 700,000 immigrants from other european union countries. at the same time, the british economy has created one million jobs for british born citizens. it is not a trade-off that an incident comes in and of a britain loses their job. they're thriving together. it is thanks to sensible policies. a regulatory environment that is relatively friendly to business. that is the secret. to say that our success depends on keeping out hard-working immigrants i think has got it exactly wrong. that is one of the ironies of this situation. britain has made this decision that will have effects for years be negativewill based on a misunderstanding of

the effects of immigration. nethas been that plus -- plus for britain. today in theece wall street journal points out that it could affect the rate increase. now, the brexit vote might delay it again. what other ripples might we see in the united states. be a: that might transitory effect. certainly right now you see a move to caution. the fed will not be raising rates anytime soon. you see money shifting from the stock market.

it is a mixed blessing for the economy. , that is nottiree so good. i think the primary effects will be on britain. one thing we have not touch but is the generational differences, a young people, those under 35 who want to stay in the union. they will have to live with this decision for 50-60 years. talk about long-term economic consequences. , they will have to live with the consequences, but not nearly as long. , by it is their country need to tell it like i see it. i could the decision to leave the european union will have some unintended and unforeseen consequences for the british people that on net will probably

not be positive. have a caller we on the democratic line calling from washington, d.c.. caller: thank you for taking my call. about remorse and ignorance of what the eu was. there are people who reported that they did not know what they and then found out that they made a mistake. now, having voted for it, we have scotland and northern and both of those countries that they want to secede from the u.k. and be joined the eu. my question is put implications does that have for the u.k.? lessuld be two countries

and certainly not better off revolt inly as they leaving the u.k.. what you think the implication is?hat guest: i think you raise some important issues. that is one of the aspects of putting it up to a referendum. you have some voters that are well-informed and some who are not very well informed on both sides of the issue. it was a huge gamble by prime minister cameron. i think you have to say the gamble did not turn out well for him but that is for historians to sort out. one of the significant effects will be the united kingdom itself, what does it mean? it is hard to argue that britain that the united

kingdom will have more influence if it does not include scotland and northern ireland? it will be somewhat diminished. it will still be an important player. i think the country has so much to offer the world. it is important, but the role in the world will be somewhat diminished. . they are part of the euro, for example. in isvantage of being .hey can shape the policy

the influence will be greatly diminished. . host: next we have kathy colligan. you are on with daniel griswold. caller: i heard yesterday that votean leading the leaf says the money they have been paying will now go to health care. what has the money been used for european union. guest: boris johnson who is a conservative member of parliament basically led the leaf campaign. pounds, save millions of per week and put it in the health service.

out, butdoes send them of course, they get money back. what does it go to? things like supporting the administration, stuff that we would not necessarily agree with . it remains to be seen whether the government will take the money that they save -- and i think it will be a lot less -- otherll they spend it on things. to be seen.ains i think the cold realities that citizens will have to live with, it will look quite a bit different than what they saw on

the campaign trail. host: we have ill calling in -- bill colligan. -- calling in. caller: i think part of the vote was because of loss of sovereignty. people thought that they were spending their money in a way that they did not necessarily agree. i think we face the same thing in this country. obama'shink barack interference in the decision but to the negative vote? guest: thank you for the point. that is important. sovereignty, i'm not sure if we used that word. i think that is the most legitimate argument you can make for removing britain from the european union. the sense that this country that have had some form of democracy thecenturies, maybe back to

1200s, has topped the world so much and has seen that sovereignty eroded. that is the feeling that i understand and can sympathize with. the economic effects, we have been talking about that. it is hard to argue that there is some trade-off. aery treaty that countrysides, every international organization that a country belongs to, you giving up some sovereignty, but, like a someact, you are giving up freedom of movement, but you gain something. north korea is probably the most and the country the world, but they are not doing so good. as far as the effect that president obama had when he went to the u.k., it is probably small. maybe a wash. he is respected by people around

the world. there may be some resentment. you probably thought with donald trump. you should have seen the tweets yesterday of donald trump saying he does not realize that scotland is a separate country. president obama warns that the u.k. would be at the back of the line. to think that will be the case talk of guest: he will not be the president when we have those negotiations. i think britain -- actually, it is not a very long line. it will soon come to a vote, the transpacific partnership. after that, you have covered 60% of our trade agreements. there is not a long line. given the important relations with great britain, i would urge the next president to not take his or her cue from president

obama and give serious consideration to a trade agreement with the u.k., in whatever form it is in at that time. nal callingwe have in. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have not heard a less informed guest in quite some time. this gentleman thinks that the diminishment of the british power has started now. the british are no longer a world power. they lost that in 2012. they made a conscious decision to expand the welfare state. now, they are a world-class welfare state. with open borders, you cannot have a welfare state, they are mutually exclusive. guest: i take it that you

disagree with what i said which is fine. we are maybe not that far apart. expensiveat having welfare an extensive state can sap and economy. that is not the case with the european union. britain can have whatever welfare policies it wants. prime minister cameron won the freedom for offering different welfare benefits to immigrants than they would to otherwise. as the evidence shows, immigrants come not to collect welfare. there are other countries that offer better welfare benefits. the come for the economic opportunity. they are for filling that opportunity, working hard, contribute into the british economy. jobs are growing for the british immigrants and the british people.

i do not share the negative you of immigrants. i think immigrants helped to make this country great. virtually all of us dissented from immigrants. i think immigration has been an important part of britain's is the story. i think there are lots of problems facing us and britain as a society. government regulation, and other things like that. this boat to get out of the european union, it'll think it will fundamentally address those issues. next, we have cindy. you are on with daniel griswold. good morning. : one thing, listing to you, i was thinking, when you said they would lose a lot of professionals, it takes me back to last week when a gentleman called on this line. host: we only have a few seconds. was a: he said he

scientist and could not find a job and it was because of people from other countries getting the jobs. that is why we are frustrated. guest: i think that is an individual case that is not representative of the experience. as we become a more technological society. fromed skilled people around the world. yes, there are americans who have those skills, and that is great. we need more of them. we do not have a significant number of people in the stem thatrs to fill the jobs are available. immigrants are providing a source of capital. the proof is in the pudding. look at britain's relative success. they have a growth rate that is better than the rest of europe with relatively low unemployment , and immigration is part of that story. they should not be blaming immigrants for economic problems

and we should not be blaming immigrants for economic problems. the problems are elsewhere. host: daniel griswold, thank you for joining us this morning. tune in tomorrow on tomorrow's "washington journal" when we "the wallalley of street journal. we will also have regina thompson talking about whether delegates should be bound to hill onrump and stephen uber. we will see tomorrow at 7:00. have a good saturday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]