we are perilously about to go over the cliff financially unless we do that. we have to rebuild our defenses because it is vitally important that america remains strong. it is vitally important that we. sure that weke have a future for our children and grandchildren. i am from here and i have lived and worked here for 33 years. opponent only bought a house in the district this year. i stand for free enterprise. i stand for personal responsibility. i stand for the constitution. i stand for the rule of law. i stand for individual responsibility and equal opportunity for all americans. that is my platform and that is how i will serve. moderator: i want to thank you both for participating in this evening's debate. i would like to thank our panel.

you can watch the full debate all over again from now until election day, head to our website. course, we will catch you up on all be week's news and analysis friday night at 7:30 on the weekly version of "new york ow." from all of us here, thank you so much for watching. have a good night and do not forget to vote. c-span's coverage of congressional debates continues tonight with pennsylvania's u.s. senate race. pat toomey faces katie mcginty at 8:00 p.m. eastern. at 9:00, marco rubio debates his challenger, patrick murphy. and rob portman meets with the ohio governor, ted strickland, tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. "newsmakers" we ofe the executive founder

emily's list. you are for pro-choice female candidates. $27.40, your group spent million, to 2014, 40 $5 million. what will be your number this time around? jessica: a big one. we are spending at high levels. we are supporting women and candidates from the top of the ticket. hillary clinton through the senate. we have an opportunity to select a historic amount of women senators. it is running through women. so we are a big player in this. we have been with most of these women since day one. >> and wanted to follow-up with the battle for the senate. there are democratic women

running in seven competitive senate races. it is looking like women could be the key. >> women will be the key, not women areke it back, also going to be the key because they're going to decide the election this year. so, yes we have a tremendous opportunity in new hampshire with maggie hassan, katie mcginty in pennsylvania, catherine cortez masto in nevada, who could be the first latina elected to the united states senate. and, of course, deborah ross in north carolina. where things are really changing on the ground. some democrats did not believe in deborah, but we were with her from day one and i believe she is going to win north carolina. kevin: when you look at the presidential race, it is obviously historically large gender gap there. we move down ballot, the gender gaps are not quite as large. what do you guys have to do to get these women senate campaigns the same level of support as for hillary clinton this year?

jessica: well, i think we're seeing the gop and donald trump are in a tailspin right now and part of it is because of donald trump's remarks and his actions, bragging about sexual assault, and these gop down ballot tickets have been sitting with him for an awful long time. so for the folks were standing with them, voters as they start to pay attention, particularly women, with less than a month to go to the election, they understand that donald trump and also these republicans that have implemented the policies that are not good for women and families and impacted them. i think down ballot, you look at the issues that they are paying attention to, it is not all just the presidential. things like minimum wage, defunding planned parenthood, issues like equal pay for equal work, republicans down ballot and in the senate are on the wrong side of these issues and voters will pay attention to that, especially women. emily: the white elephant in the campaign, donald trump, your group has called for the

apprentice to release their tapes. i am wondering, what kind of role emily's list is going for the clinton campaign in being able to attack trump on items like this. i noticed that the clinton campaign is not going where they could on that, but you guys have been a little more forceful on that. jessica: well, look, we have been with hillary clinton from day one. this is what we are doing at emily's list, electing democratic women, and part of that is helping them with their campaigns. regardless of what office they are running for. but it is also having their backs, and this race is turning ugly, and i think someone who is running to be president of the united states, we should know a little bit more about them. hillary clinton has certainly been vetted and i think donald trump, these tapes are fair game. we have to understand the private and public conversations he is having. given the allegations, to hear, although it is not surprising that he has a history of mistreating women. >> have you heard from mgm? jessica: we've not heard back from them, but we will continue to press for this. we are not the only ones, right? there are a lot of people going

for this. we think it is an important issue and this is something that the public deserves a right to know. as they are making decisions in elections, so we will continue. kevin: so far, groups like yours have not particularly used donald trump in down ballot campaign advertising. the dscc has not. they have not extensively linked these candidates to trump. do you think with the sexual assault allegations coming out that will change? is that a good strategy or is it a better strategy to do what you have been doing all along, checking these people on policy decisions they hold? jessica: i think the policy positions are damaging to men and women, but i think donald trump is the result of a republican party that has been created, and you look at somebody like mike pence, two sides of the same coin. donald trump talks about punishing women, and mike pence has actually done that in indiana.

and i think voters understand that. so even the republicans that are trying to run from him now, disavow him, john mccain, heck in nevada, senator ayotte, it is too little too late. there is no political courage in that. voters will see through that. kevin: do you think that this means now that if you are voter in pennsylvania or new hampshire you should expect to see a lot of television advertising linking kelly ayotte and pat toomey to donald trump? jessica: if you live in the states where these races are tight, there are a lot of communications going on. there may be more trump communications to come. but i think a lot of what we're going to see her going to be about what issues matter to voters. we talk about it a little, but women want to hear about issues that will impact their daily lives. this campaign has taken a difficult turn from the top to the bottom. and they want to hear about issues that impact them. i think you will hear that, too. especially in all of these states where they have voted to

defund planned parenthood. women are alarmed by what is happening in the republican party right now. i think today even the last vote on violence against women, 160 republicans voted against that, 150 of them, men. these things do make a difference. i do not think they can run from donald trump or the policies that are hurting women and families. greta: what are some of the races you're talking about, where women will care about the planned parenthood issue? emily: -- jessica: i think in new hampshire, there are voters talking to this. has voted totte defund planned parenthood. she is an a lot of trouble because she called donald trump a role model. her lack of leadership right now is hurting her. in addition to the policies, she has voted against the minimum wage. these issues have carried through to places like pennsylvania. senator toomey has also voted to defund planned parenthood.

and that is an important issue for voters there. go to the west of the country, catherine cortez mastro. joe heck is essentially a mini trump. there is more discussion about donald trump in that particular race. they are trying to run away from him now but it is too little too late. emily: we're talking at the top of the ticket in regards to donald trump, but also hillary clinton, who has high unfavorable ratings. how are you counterbalancing that? jessica: yeah, look, hillary clinton continues from day one, and continues to try to focus on the issues that people want to talk about. we saw that at the last debate. i am sure we will see in the next debate as well. she needs to continue to do that, to focus on issues that are most in americans lives. that is what we will see from our women candidates whether they are running for the senate or the house. the house is an important element in this. we have an opportunity to

potentially expand the map. women are alarmed by what they are hearing and seeing, not only from the top of the ticket, and also from the republicans in their districts. hillary clinton has a strong record to run on, particularly fighting for women and families, and i think we will hear more of that. emily: nancy pelosi, democratic leader of the house, has said she thinks this will come down to a single digit difference on election day in the house. are you in line with her prediction? democrats need 31 seats. that is a lot, but she is saying the difference could be down to a single digit after election day. jessica: emily's list has endorsed 33 women running for the house. so i hope it is all women, and i hope they all win. we are obviously going to make tremendous gains. and i think each day closer to elections, we feel stronger that. i don't know what the numbers will be, i wish i did. that would make my job a lot easier if i knew all the , numbers, but i think it will be close and we are going to make big gains. we're going to see that, for sure. because women will be the deciders in this election, the

way things are headed, i think it will have a big impact on down ballot races and the house. kevin: a lot of the house districts are with these suburban women, the focus of the entire election. what specifically can you guys do to reach out to this group of voters? what are the issues? jessica: sure. women are concerned about their reproductive and economic health, they care about jobs, they want to know what hillary's economic plan is, what the plan will be for congress going forward so that they have a fair shot. i think we can see the real contrast in the race. what we see is that stakes are pretty high for women in terms of their own bodies, reproductive health is a very big issue for people. when you have republicans obsessed with votes like defunding planned parenthood, it is very upsetting to families who want to talk about economic issues. so i think were going to see a lot of that, particularly in house races as it continues to be so important.

emily: i was talking with some female republican strategists, the other side of the aisle, and there also concerned about suburbia and women. but they are saying some of the issues they are hearing are the opioid crisis, education, safety and security. are you hearing the same things? jessica: absolutely. i think especially on the safety and security. i think particularly when you look at the commander-in-chief test that we are all faced with right now in terms of casting a ballot for president, donald trump is unfit to be commander in chief and hillary clinton is ready to lead from day one. and i do think particularly moms, suburban women, they are thinking about these issues, they are thinking about our national security and safety and the experience she will bring. but they also understand that she needs a congress that she can work with to get things done and that is the work we're doing at emily's list, to help these women, these diverse women who can bring in unique perspectives, because that is an important part of what is happening here. what we are seeing, while the republicans are in a tailspin about their own elections, the democrats understand that the diverse perspectives that their candidates bring will make a difference on these issues.

kevin: when you look at the senate map, to back up to that, in pennsylvania and new hampshire, those are two states where the republican incumbent has really attacked aggressively your candidates on national security. they really think they have an advantage there. what do maggie hassan and kate mcginty have to do to blunt the advantage they seem to have on this? jessica: they have to talk about these issues to voters and they are doing that. we're in the middle of the season not only for the presidential candidates, but also for senate candidates. and they will have real opportunities to continue to talk to these voters and answer questions about these issues. they will have opportunity in the debate to answer these questions and they need to do that. but i'm confident that they will be prepared to do so. i'm confident that they are prepared to talk about national security and issues of safety. and i think that these issues are coming up in all sorts of ways. if you look at the things that are happening, these e-mail hacks, our own government as it

-- says this is the result of russians trying to influence the united states elections and that is something that should be troubling for all americans. people should pay a lot of attention on a whole lot of issues. greta: what is your prediction for control of the senate? jessica: democrats are going to win, and it will be through women. emily: to follow up on that, one of the best campaigners democrats have, we all admit she is amazing on the stump, is michelle obama. so how come we're not seeing michelle obama out there more in this cycle, especially for the women to bring back control of the senate? jessica: we still have a long way to go, so we may see her in the trail for some of these women. because the stakes are really incredibly high and the president and first lady and they are out, as was the vice president, on the trail in all the states we are talking about. i think that we see that the first lady in particular has been a tremendous asset talking about these issues that women care about while stumping for hillary clinton. i think we may see this down the road.

but there is no question that this is a choice for voters about whether we continue the progress of president obama and the work that he has done the last eight years or whether we roll back the clocks. i think that is the choice. kevin: the trump campaign has signaled that they're going to try to relitigate some of bill clinton's sexual assault allegations against bill clinton. is this the sort of thing damping down turnout among younger women who have may not have heard of this, then voting -- who were not of voting age in the 1990's? what you guys have to do to counter that strategy? do you think that is a strategy that needs countering? or is it something that you think is not going to matter? jessica: i think donald trump is rolling out these stunts because he offers nothing in terms of ideas and policies for americans today. i think hillary clinton would much prefer to be talking about issues that millennials care about like climate change, like affordable college, and issues like student loans.

that is a conversation we should be having. i think these are stunts meant to distract. i also think that donald trump is probably the only person in america who does not understand that it is hillary clinton who is on the ballot and hillary clinton is running for president. i don't think this will be successful. i think the endorsement of people like bernie sanders and elizabeth warren for hillary clinton the work they are doing, they are talking to people about this race, as is hillary clinton, about the campaign. this is an enormous issue for reaching young voters but it is hard to do when you're running against someone who has incoherent policy, incoherent sentences, so that is tough and have to break through that. but i can assure you we are working with her to do that. emily: to follow up about millennial voters, because this is a huge demographic democrats are targeting. what kind of practical things are you doing to get their attention, because they are not the traditional media voters that other ones are. they tend to be on social media,

and what we're hearing from some focus groups is that they are really torn between gary johnson and jill stein or hillary clinton. they are thinking of going third party. jessica: yeah. so we at emily's list will run a multimillion dollar ad run to reach millennial voters, and we have been communicating with them the past year or so and trying to reach them where they are at, online especially and also talking to them about hillary clinton. obviously, most of them want around and they have to learn about her past and public service and experience over the last 30 years. so we have been doing a lot of work in that. we're also seeing validators like president obama who has himself said that a vote for gary johnson or a third-party is essentially a vote for donald trump. millennial voters are smart. they may be scrutinizing things, and we want them to, that is what democracy is about. we want them to take a hard look at these candidates, but at the end of the day i think they understand exactly what is at

stake for them. that this fight is about their future. and i think there is no other choice because this campaign is about two people, hillary clinton and donald trump, and they will have to choose from one of those. and there's no question they will choose hillary clinton, especially the women. kevin: to go back to something you alluded to earlier, you guys were instrumental in recruiting two different female senate candidates. initially the dscc was not particularly excited about them. that is deborah ross in north carolina and katie mcginty in pennsylvania. why do you think that the traditional democratic structure missed these candidates who they are now eagerly embracing? is there still a problem with democrats not looking at women candidates? emily's list is now over 25 25 years old as an organization. jessica: there is absolutely still work to do. women only

make up 20% of congress, so we have a long way to go to make that up. women are 50% of the country, so we would like to see that gap narrow. that is the work we do at emily's list. you are actually right, we recruited katy mcginty in pennsylvania and deborah ross in north carolina and others along the way. we recruited elizabeth warren when she ran for senate. there is more work to do. there are always questions about viability, and that is precisely why emily's list exists and has 3 million members to support these women get up and running. there are many qualified women who are ready to run for office, and that is the work that we do. now they have run terrific , campaigns we do terrific , recruiting. we help them get their campaigns running and deborah ross and katie mcginty are going to do exactly what they need to do to win. they're going to be the next senators. that will make believers of everybody. emily: i am fascinated by the phenomenon of the split ticket, which is when a voter votes for one party for president and another for senate. it is kind of rare. but this year could be a little bit different. i'm thinking of some polling we saw a few weeks ago when mr. trump was ahead in ohio and florida

when rob portman and marco rubio were outperforming mr. trump in that state. and i'm curious about the comparison with new hampshire, where kelly ayotte is not. and i am kind of wondering what your thoughts are as a woman senate candidate, is she under tougher scrutiny for her actions than these males are? jessica: i think as a woman and as a mother, she can't not be impacted by the comments from donald trump and his actions. it is troubling. it is troubling to all women. i don't know a woman out there who is not having a conversation about this right now. this transcends party. and i do think it is hard for her. i do get is hard for her to be a republican standing there with the republican nominee now that she has walked away, recently. but it is way too little, too late. and that is what women are saying and looking at. why did

it take so long? why did it take so long for these republicans to show leadership on this issue around women, the candidate at the top with donald trump who is called mexicans rapists and criminals. why did it take so long for her and john mccain and joe heck to walk away from donald trump? that is the real question. that is what voters are asking. i do think it's hard for her. how could it not be? emily: to clarify, kelly ayotte, has as you said, has disavowed , donald trump and revoked her endorsement. but new hampshire has fascinated me by their voter patterns because there are so many independent voters there and they famous for making up their minds in the last few days of the campaign. and the polling there still shows that race between kelly ayotte and maggie hassan pretty close. jessica: it is a close race. a lot of these races were talking about are close. and i think we're seeing some women at the top of the ticket with hillary clinton, there will be tickets like that, there will be ticket splitting, but i think a lot of these instances republicans

cannot run from donald trump and cannot run from the policies that they have instituted over their tenures. the bottom line is that is what it comes down to. they have been involved with this republican party that gave rise to donald trump and have been supportive of policies that are harmful to women. and i think they're going to pay a price this election, because women are going to decide this election. in 2012, the gender gap helped propel barack obama to reelection. he won with the largest gender gap in history. i think we're going to blow it out of the water. and it will affect down ballot races, for sure. kevin: how do actually translate that? into the down ballot? you look at a state like pennsylvania, pat toomey is running well ahead of trump. there have been a number of poll where hillary clinton has a solid lead over donald trump and pat toomey with a good lead over katie mcginty. what do you do to change that? jessica: what is happening is that republicans are getting themselves distracted with

fighting. i think we can expect that will only. i don't think it will get better. the difference for democrats is we have party unity right now. we understand what is at stake and the party has come together. all of these races, i think that is going to be something. kevin: is is really mostly about letting the republicans collapse? jessica: not going to stop it. not going to stop it. they are collapsing. there collapsing because their policies are outdated. issues that really impact. partially donald trump, and partially because they are not hearing about the issues that matter most to them. hillary clinton, she is offering a plan even in the midst of the circus we are in right now. plans the impact everyday lives.

i think republicans, donald trump will continue to be a huge distraction. emily: you have a sense since you're out in the field of what the surprise in the race might be? jessica: the race against john mccain in arizona. she has been consistently out raising him, the debate recently, i think john mccain has changed. and i think arizonans are really struggling with that. he has been there a long time. there has been a lot of loyalty, but i think he has changed and they are struggling to figure out how they want to handle that because he stood by donald trump , and arizona is heavily latino. recently one of the miss arizona women from the pageants, trump walked in on her when she was changing. democrats have been

elected there multiple times. people are continuing to get to know her and turning towards her. i think arizona race could be a suris >> senator mccain has withdrawn his endorsement of mr. trump. kevin: arizona is not yet attracting a lot of outside spending. is ann kirkpatrick going to need outside help to win the race or can she win it without the big national groups getting involved?

jessica: the demographics in arizona are changing. john mccain has definitely changed. it is one on the radar that people are watching. there is a cycle where again we're going to take back the senate because of women, women of color. we will be able to elect women of color. the senate only had two of them in its entirety history. this is a chance to transform the senate not only with women, but other communities. so i think it will be surprises in this climate. i also think in a state like arizona where you border issues and voter registration, these are issues that motivate voters. and she could benefit from some of these things happening nationally and also in arizona, specifically. greta: how many races are you focusing on in the senate? he said it will be a lot bigger than $45 million. how much bigger? jessica: nine women for the senate, senator patty murray is also up for reelection.

and candidates for the house and two candidates for governor, and 100 women at the state and local level. we're spending on these tight senate races to impact them. have a big number at the end of the cycle. and big wins at the end of the cycle. greta: thank you for being on newsmakers. greta: back with our reporter roundtable. emily, you just heard from emily's list. donald trump is having a real impact on the senate and house races that they are focusing on. what are the polls telling us at this point? emily: we should start out by saying -- we may not note the

impact for another week or so until we get to the next presidential debate until we see the fallout from the scandal. right now a lot of talk about the new hampshire race, two women running. pretty tight right there. slightly for kelly ayotte. pennsylvania is tied. a little too soon to tell, but in a few weeks we may get more polling. greta: kevin robillard? kevin: these things are very tight. what is interesting is that they are really trying to tie donald trump to these down ballot candidates. for a while, the clinton campaign was avoiding doing

that. now, they are saying that donald trump is a republican and you should not vote for pat toomey because she supports donald trump. that is the argument you are seeing now. maybe that type of argument might lead to democrats being greater gains in those polls that we will have to wait a week or two to tell. greta: what kind of impact is hillary clinton having on state emily: a mixed bag. i do not think it is as bad as you would think it is. hillary clinton and donald trump, they are known quantities. not a lot much more we can learn about the clintons. even with the e-mails coming up. as you pointed out, a lot of the e-mails are just policies. undecided, i mean hillary clinton or third party. they're not looking at from. donald trump or hillary clinton, how that could affect the senate race, we will see that.

greta: emily's list getting folks out like elizabeth warren. saying that you have to vote for hillary clinton. emily: they are absolutely. in ohio and new hampshire. college campuses. kevin: and third-party voters, they often don't vote down ballot. which way will gary johnson voters go? right now most are going republican. there is also a decent group of people who will support katie mcginty or maggie hassan. that is an open question. or they could vote for the libertarian candidate. greta: question for both of you. what about her predictions that would takes control question -- would take control? kevin: to get the four seats, pennsylvania and wisconsin are

next. emily: i agree, and point out pennsylvania, the most money spent in the cycle. that right there is a state everybody is focused on. and the house, we pretty much agree the republicans will keep control but it may be by a slim margin. greta: and we will have to see the impact of that. emily goodin and kevin robillard here for newsmakers. newsline -- . life here on c-span, a conversation about brexit and the impact it could have on europe. we'll hear from ambassadors from germany, france and the european union at georgetown university law center in washington, d.c.,

theresa may is considering paying billions of pounds to be the singleess european market after britain officially leaves. as for what the impact will be on europe, we will hear from the ambassadors. >> good afternoon. dean forassociate international programs here at georgetown. i was like to welcome you to this program. threeew minutes, i have brief tasks to accomplish. which i will try to do quickly. so you can benefit from the wisdom of our panel. welcome to georgetown law. although many of you are already

here. and i want to say something about the program in the economic law, which is managed by my colleague. to introduce the speakers who will follow me on the podium. the world'ss one of great centers for the study of international affairs. forthis is a focal point the study of international economics at the university. founded in 1999. is now directed by chris from her. and the ultimate object of his two for fell platforms with conferences convene such as this to bring together public and private sector leaders and offer executive education. originally i focused on trade. as you will see an today's conversation on her exit the institutes portfolio has grown in recent years to include

leading capabilities and renown in a range of issues including monetary affairs and investment and arbitration. tax and business law. and in each one of the fields, i have colleagues who are global experts on the subject. weaverhe conception, with international organizations and including those here in washington such as the world bank, and also the umf. enormous time providing analysis and technical assistance to these corporations. have students offer assistance on nuclear proliferation in the trade lab events on foreign corporations with systemic risk. let's reintroduce our moderator and panelists. from my left but you're right. chris brummer, the director. joined the faculty in 2009.

he has taught at other universities. our summer run program in london. david o sullivan, ambassador of the european union to the united states. aswas appointed ambassador of november 2014. prior to his deployment, he served as the chief operating officer of the european external action service and was responsible for establishing the dramatic services, one of the largest networks with 140 delegations across the globe. to the left is the ambassador of the slovak republic. he graduated from moscow state institute of international relations in 1990 and received his doctorate in bratislava. in his 25 years of work, he has

served the usa and sweetie and -- usa, sweden and israel. posting infirst 2003-2005, he was an sure mental and facilitating the u.s. recognition process regarding slovakian accession to nato. ambassador to the united states since 2012, he has been actively promoting trade. , the ambassador of france to the united states. he is a career diplomat and was -- he heldmbassador numerous positions -- disarmament. the director general political affairs and security, and most recently, the present of a france united nations in new

york. , german ambassador to the united states stints 2014. tender in the spirit of counsel from 2012. previously served as director general for the united nations on global issues. with such an informed of panel, i look forward to an interesting discussion. thank you for being here and for your time. >> thank you. at the instigation of international law has been actually fortunate to have many policymakers and leading officials and regulators and diplomat or worse here at georgetown and our programming has witnessed a bit of a renaissance here.

and it is such a pleasure to have you here today. i just wanted to thank jennifer hillman and the students for the only course in any law school focused exclusively on brexit to help provide some of the questions that you will be hearing today. into a multitude of issues across different policy issue areas. i think i want to start with ambassador o'sullivan. particularly since this conversation is being broadcast across the united states, brexit has been one of the leading stories here, which is why there is such interest. and this has been in part due to the sheer unexpectedness of it all. particular think, in as the representative of the european union that the causes were and how do you believe americans should interpret the drivers behind it? encourage the other ambassadors as well, any question may be

directed to any one of them to challenge or supplement or agree to disagree. >> thank you very much, indeed. it is a great pleasure to be here. not least because my own daughter just graduated from georgetown law in may. i'm afraid she was more interested in refugee law then corporate taxation. [laughter] character but worries her father's pocketbook. and i would like to congratulate you on starting a course in brexit and the law, because if there is one thing we can say with certainty, there probably is not much we can say with certainty, it will be a lawyer's paradise for many years to come. so i congratulate many of you have taken this option because i think you can probably deal with this for the rest your lives. to your question, we could spend a long time on the postmortem of why it happened. i'm not so sure it was so surprising.

in europe were not so surprised. once we knew that the united kingdom decided to have a referendum on the subject, it was always going to be a close call, whichever way it went. the former french member of the european parliament said after the referendum that before the referendum, the decision of was one footngdom in and one foot out and after the referendum, the situation was reversed. some of you got that. it is truei think that there are a lot of u.k. specific elements in this outcome. a hesitation about joining the european union. u.k. had a referendum only two years after they joined. they had a referendum to confirm that the actually wanted to still be a member. and i think the slightly summit attached nature -- they were not part of the euro and i think there has always been a healthy strong body of opinion in the u.k. which was frankly reluctant

and reserved about membership, if not downright hostile. so once you open the possibility of a vote on this subject, i think it was always going to be a close call as to what came out of it. and in the end, it was the sense of wishing to take back control as the leave campaign put it, a sense of some misplacedn my view, a field of lost sovereignty. they were very specific u.k. elements that i don't think are easily replicated elsewhere across the system. alsog said that, there are generic elements in the moment which you would find elsewhere in europe and which, to a certain extent, you find here in the united states. this was also a sense of frustration with the way that economic and social policy had developed. particularly since the crash in 2008 of the financial crisis and

then the economic crisis. uncertainty generated by globalization and in europe, the european union is seen very much as the frontline of globalization. , and think these elements of course the issue of immigration although it unique feature of the u.k. was a intra-european immigration, perhaps more so than extra european immigration. whereas i would say elsewhere in europe, the concerns are less about intra-european immigration and more about extra european integration. a common certainly theme across europe and we have challengers of populist parties arising in all the member states. their criticisms go hand-in-hand with some degree of euro skepticism. so there are also elements that are common across all of europe at this point in time. the united states

make of it? well, paul simon says there are 50 ways to leave your lover. i don't know if there are 50 ways of brexit. but we are not yet in a post brexit world. nothing has actually changed. of course, something has changed fundamentally. we have had an important political development and we know that we are going to leave, but the precise way in which that is going to operate and what is going to happen afterwards or what will be the relationship, all of that is up in the open. i think the initial reaction in the united states is one of concern for what this means for the strong reliance and alliance with europe. obviously, it is easier from the point of view not just of the u.s. but many of our partners if we are 28 countries, a one-stop shop part of the same union. the fact that now an important member of the european union is going to withdraw and develop separately, i imagine the u.s.

what thised about means for how we manage the relationship. it is of a concern to all of us, frankly. and we will be watching carefully to see how this develops. is one thing i would say that i think we are all going to need a lot of strategic patience. this is going to take some time. don't yet know what the united kingdom is going to propose. the prime minister indicated triggering the article 50, the formal article of the treaty by sometimet takes place in the spring. there is a two-year timeframe in there. so we are looking at, i don't know, 2.5 years from now before we know exactly how the u.k. is leaving. the building of a new relationship between the u.k. out of the eu and for the rest of the eu is probably going to take longer to negotiate under a different article of the treaty.

so i think we have to live with a certain degree of uncertainty for many years to come. and we are all going to have to figure out how we do this, and we've never done it before in the european union with the exception of greenland, which left in the early 1980's which is a much bigger country but a slightly less complicated reason. things well if all in the way that we cannot understand. i appreciate that everyone wants to jump to point. so many articles proposing -- i have figure out how this can be made to work and they may be right. and some ideas may ultimately be in the mix. we have a lot of politics to go before now and the moment the british make their request to leave with their proposals as to how they would like to leave.

and then we have to figure out how we react to that. to learn what kind of new relationship we wish to build went to work out the terms of the separation. so there is a long way to go before we can see exactly where the process leads us. there are certainly risks on both sides. but at the end of the day, we will all try to make the best of what all of us reluctantly is a sub optimal situation but one that we have to respect. >> certainly an important issue and it sets the stage for some of the more technical and legal questions that we will be working through and thinking through. also make sure that if there were any other comments or observations about how brexit was seen in your own country or differing interpretations as to whether there was a catalyst, your views and your thoughts. we can just move down.

toit is my pleasure experience with colleagues from the eu. the reason i am sitting here is slovakia is ase resident of the european council. and one of the main recommendations when you prepare your priorities is to expect the unexpected. and that is what happened with brexit. it happened just before we took over the presidency on july 1. so the main focus of our presidency was to reflect on what to do both on the institution law side, the council will be very much a part of the considerations, how to negotiate the relationship with the u.k. in the future. see, there is a mushrooming of the negotiating

themes that have been under the council. commission.ropean the european parliament would like to have it say with the whole process. of course, national governments are stepping in. organization groups, it will be very complicated for us from the institutional point of view. but also, from the point of view of substance. as david mentioned. the the perspective of brexit heldsident, its first summit in mid-september. to so we have six months create our own reflections through our capital. so there will be two processes. one will be external negotiations with the u.k. and also, the second part of the process will be the reflection by why this happened.

why the u.k. decided to do so. the furthervoid disintegration of the european union. david rightly mentioned that immigration was very much a part of the negative outcome. so, itadoxically happened to be with the internally immigration. so for central and eastern europeans as part of the european union, it will be very much important to focus on what kind of outcome we will get, especially when it comes to the freedom of movement of the labor force. central eastern europeans moved to the united kingdom. so the priority is to keep the freedoms untouched or two negotiate them with a balanced outcome. >> thank you. it is great to be here. thank you.

first, why -- i think it is a transatlantic phenomenon. you have your presidential election, we have brexit, you have the far right, we are all facing the same ways of this. was theknow, i think it financial times that said, the losers of globalization are rebelling. think, areally, i challenge that we are all facing, all western democracies. whoever is that elected president in this they will havek to handle this issue. you know, why. in the u.s., why? in the u.k., why? we ask so many of our citizens who are dissatisfied and you are

telling us that they are to satisfied. the second thing, i think, and here, in the sense of an official negotiator, a negotiation has not started. which means that i would say -- if i were not a diplomat, i would say there is some chest banging. it is normal that before any negotiation, all sides are saying that they are not going theympromise and that don't compromise on principles and so on and so on. so i think we are in a normal status before the opening of the negotiations. you know, people say they won't compromise. of course, there will be a compromise at the end of the day. said, we don't know what will be the compromise. has its ownion momentum. its own logic. and especially with this negotiation, where you have 28

of 29 with the european commission, you have a lot of negotiations. we have a lot of different interests. i think it is totally impossible right now to know first whether we reach an agreement. we are 28, know, which means a lot of red lights. and when we reach an agreement and what will be the agreement. all of us, we want a good agreement. all of us want a mutually beneficial relationship with the u.k.. we are not on the revenge path or the resentment pass. we do defend our interests and interest of the union but it is so complicated that i think we are totally unable to tell you where we are going. >> thank you. i also want to say thank you for including me in this panel. i am a proud father of a georgetown freshman so i should say that.

[laughter] does brexit mean for the u.s. and how should the u.s. look at it, and i introduce a geopolitical dimension to it. that is as important as the legal, technical and economic aspects of the tricks it are, i think that this added another challenge to europe. the financial and economic crisis, after the greek debt crisis, after the refugee crisis and it has hit in a way that europe already could carry estate. and that has become a transatlantic issue. so now, for the u.s., there is reason to worry. gloom profitom and about europe. what i think there is reason to worry in the u.s. about the

strength and resilience of the european union. and we have a lot of challenge. and you said it. , thea, the refugee crisis fault lines that are emerging in europe. so for the u.s., the challenge is to worry about the strength and resilience of the european union. of the 27, quite frankly. we all are great allies of the u.k.. and we want to remain so. we are losing the second-biggest economy in europe and in our thirdwe are losing the biggest destination of exports and i were fifth trading partner but what matters to us most, and it should matter to the u.s., is the coherence of the 27. that europe can remain the most privileged apartment of the u.s.

and to remain strongly economically and politically as a player on the global scene. know this, it will be the most complicated divorce in history, that we have ahead of us. we are all treading in entirely new territory. it is difficult to predict what will happen as far as my country is concerned and most of all of all of the most of other countries. we want relations that are as close as possible with the u.k.. we have a strong self interest. unity ofriority is the the 27 in europe. wonderfulings up a set of issues for the lawyers and lawyers in training here for the audience. and those are the negotiation questions. unity is important to the future of europe.

but in order to secure a deal, it has to be done with the consensus of the remaining european countries. arounddor, i will spin theow have you seen negotiations progressing? recently? states met in the capital without theresa may in attendance. and there was notable friction along a range of policies that immigrationd, from to supporting economies. but what are the takeaways from that summit? perceive those takeaways as interacting with all oflity to negotiate the myriad of details within the two-year timeline that would be started once article 50 is set in motion? >> thank you. as i mentioned, we see the whole

process as a chain of negotiations. it really is very important to reflect on the situation that has happened with brexit. it will be a very complicated situation. my colleagues mentioned that there will of course be the red line by the international capitals. so it will go public, of course. and there will be many sentiments presented to argue the negotiations in public. thatany political streams are actually eager to work on the disintegration of the european union. so we need to be really cautious on how to move the european project further. and of course, there are two main questions. how to keep building the european identity. , are we there to

help with europe as an identity? because i have met very few europeans, if you ask them whether they are europeans or whether they have an affiliation to the national identity, it will prevail. so we are not there to be europeans. so this is very important, an important message to the young population. that is leaning towards a populist movement and message. the second challenge in the reconciliation time will be how to move the whole project forward. because we are at a have the eurozone and we have different layers of integration. whereneed to reflect on

to actually build ground zero now. so how to move. the eurozone will become a fundamental playground for the reflections to move further. or we have to step back and on they start working weakest link of the integration and move further. >> and could you maybe discuss a little bit what we talked about momentarily in the green room about the technical aspects? reading the 27 members to agree on policy, what happens if there are disagreements and certainly, there will be some kind of negotiation dynamic where different member of states want about brexit as an opportunity to think deeply about their relationship with the european union, and the relationship of the u.k. with the remaining member states, but

also the remaining member states as large with each other. how difficult is this? what are the kinds of steps that need to be put in place in order for those article 50 negotiations to begin? >> again. this isust say that quite confident. occurred, myrexit first analysis was that as usual, the british will be very good the british diplomacy for 20th century has to be divided .etween continental powers the damage was against france actually. against negotiate one -- versus 27 you can say it is much easier to be on the side of the one.

i think there was a declaration which means countries like clearly -- we said very there couldn't be a compromise limitation of the freedom of separation of people. for me it meant -- for instance you can imagine one of the european countries would consider that the freedom of separation of people is not that important. so it is waiting to make a compromise on that to get something else. at this point, countries like poland or worse about you in and say no way. only an example, but it means you are going to have these negotiations. every country will have their own red lines, making it other compromise.

every time you want to compromise you will have a country saying no way. i'm not sure we can reach a compromise. it can be interpreted in many ways. it it mayto go, or negotiation, ihe don't know how we can have a good soft mutually meant -- mutually beneficial exit.

the idea that we can find. that's what i wanted to do. there are many faultlines. our main concern would be to maintain the unity of the 27th. it means we are not going to accept some demands, which may in danger the unity of the 27th. element whichn makes these negotiations feel more difficult. them on this process, first of the notion of red lines has become toxic in this country.

maybe sort of the premises under which we enter those or wait for the british to permit -- for the british to present themselves. no free negotiations before they what my-- and that is chancellor and others and french president have made clear. an exiting country cannot be better off exiting outside the eu. that is a very important principle, otherwise the eu would be in danger to unravel. once article 50 is triggered and the prime minister of the uk said it will be happening by the end of march. there is a dynamic. it may be antagonistic.

behind those seemingly technical are lurking political explosive issues. want thehey don't norwegian model. there is the replacement of all the eu existing free trade agreements. it is this very pressing british demand. that is extremely important.

and there is the challenge to renegotiate the wto membership, which they have only by virtue. virtue of the european union. you revitalize the relationship and policy in the intelligence services. it is a whole lot of arrangements that need to be soft. >> i think they have sketched out the politics of it.

when the united eventually triggers article 50, it will be commission to propose a negotiating position. then the basis on which he -- on the commission on behalf of the 27th. i think it is important to understand going to the red lines. that is how we overcome our internal differences. we have to agree on a position to whatever the initial responses. that is the dynamic at all stages. ultimately under the supervision of the states and european parliament, that dynamic is never to be underestimated as

being quite different from conducting an investigation and trying to reach a consensus. is actually a legal structure in which this will happen. article 50 is only one part of this negotiation. essentially airbrushing the u.k. out of the treaties and all the tightening up that needs to be done to make that happen. end of the day it is relatively straightforward. the second part is what is the new relationship. that is going to be infinitely new complicated. that will be negotiated under some article of the treaty depending on what the u.k. suggests and proposes. a time limit of two years, there is no time limit on negotiating the new arrangement. it is a classical trade agreement than the classical

timeframe would be eight years. that is what it typically takes to negotiate an important trade agreement. then there is going to be a question of if there is a .ransition all of this is uncharted territory. we are going to find out how this works. in terms of the most important message i want to give, in terms of the 27th, there will be a dynamic operating on behalf of the 27th. and to address the issues in which were placed on the table. different people going out and speaking and taking positions.

it is one thing to say this is my national position at this point in time. >> i have been struck by this common theme of compromise. and at the end of this process they expected the u.k. to still have a status that is thirdat different from countries out there. the thinking about fundamental freedoms enshrined in the european union, really it is not an on-off switch but a spectrum of potential possibilities.

>> i don't think everything is up for negotiation. the single market is for freedoms. ien i hear people talk about would like access to the single market, it is a contradiction in terms. if you want a trade access to european union without freedom of movement it is something else. think there are certain fundamental values of the european union which will be and absolutely at the core of the difference between being in the european union and outside the european union. everyone comes to this as adults, the u.k. is never going to be a typical third country. it is an integral third part of the european geography.

many otherly in so reefs -- so many other respects. on the other hand there is going beinga difference between inside the european union and outside. we are not going to did explore how that is developed. everything that is up for negotiation, it is all a spectrum. i don't think that is where we are at the moment. >> i wanted to continue this conversation within europe. from your vantage point, do you believe in the answer to be an antidote to be more europe or less europe? it is certainly an important question. are lots of different responses and the french government has taken an interesting position when it comes to everything from military bases and military

to rethinking the economic bases of varying regulatory agendas. if you had any comments or thoughts on that. >> when you ask a question to a french diplomat, immediately the answer is better. the problem we have been facing is obviously the fact that a lot of our citizens, not only in the u.k., a lot of our citizens are disenchanted. it was only the front line of globalization. for my generation your hope was something which we could have a question.

you twitter was avoiding war. it was also prosperity and security. for a lot of europeans it is not anymore the case. we have to answer to their concerns. we know some decisions have been on the borders for europe area it is clear that the immigration crisis has been a strong element and is a general concern for our general. we have to ensure the safety of .ur borders

we also have to answer in terms of security. we are victims of terrorism. have the -- ould feel beforeo arising. really it will be a way also of checking the separation of the people. the crisis of the european union by theely deserved who stagnation that most of the -- since youtries have generously exported the european crisis. we knew we would need investments.

there is also a question of tax. they point -- they pay .005%. is not only acceptable, but also in political terms. think in terms of tax fairness and social fairness. we have all sorts of questions to answer, which are not obliging us into a debate about more or less. and responding to the concerns of our citizens. >> an interesting and

well-written thoughtful post saying don't write europe off. more or less against year. also to write them more and better. >> we should not write europe off. although i must admit this brexit came as a shock. it really triggered a lot of soul-searching-- . it is the phase we are in now, -- questioning can we do better. first we must've run the expectations of the citizens. truste to retain their and ask each and every measure

how does this benefit citizens? results? wengible have to focus on the core business. the core business is defense. france and germany has pay -- ideas to harmonize that to protect nato, better the internal and external borders. to fight terrorism. also the economic damage. youth unemployment, those issues. we really have to focus on what it is we can do together.

the third thing is we have to unmask the truth behind all this the rhetoric that is rampant in europe. i think there are real issues of losers of globalization. in a is also scapegoating big way going on. guilty for us are blaming brussels for our own defects. that has to stop. otherwise we will not regain the trust of our citizens. >> i know there are some questions from the audience to the extent which folks have microphones. this is probably a pretty good time. ambassador, i think a

lot of folks washington -- folks in washington dc and around the country are interested in. countries have an interest in brexit. a key partner to the united states. ariseare questions that to the right of third-party countries, where they have interest either in the u.k. or vice versa. what can or should folks in to really states do think through what the likely outcome is for this interest? and to what extent has washington dc been involved in those discussions in the european union? >> i think that's a good

question. not been athere has huge amount of discussion. it is important to get this message across. i think we are engaged in the endgame of this discussion. we are at a very early stage. the intensity of the debate inside the kingdom. frankly we owe it to the british government to give them the space to sort all this out. -- and this sort of thought our position, which reflects how they see this. it is very difficult for the rest of us to actually respond beyond the sort of things we see here. also wishing to have the best possible relationship in this with a close friend

and ally, which will be the united kingdom under any circumstances. right, ibsolutely think this is a big question which affects everyone. this is one of those tricky issues where you have a referendum within the jurisdictions of one sovereign nation, but actually has ramifications for everyone. it has ramifications for the rest of us in the eu because a profoundly affects the future development of the european union, but has profound effects for alliances like the region -- alliances like the united states. also economic and commercial. massive u.s. investment in europe and massive u.s. investment in the u.k.. what are they now worth? how are they going to be managed going forward?

also a major investor -- mentioning the ongoing trade agreements. hopefully to conclude a deal with canada. we have them with south korea, with japan. the stakes are high asked to how we deal with the u.k., which is no longer party to those agreements. my first advice is on the one hand be as honest as we can with how they perceive this. u.k. means to have a sovereign decision. this --a distance from i think people jumping to

-- this is also a process which is going to take a certain amount of time to work it way through our perspective political systems. we go forward over the next 2.5 years. we understand the issues, the solutions, whatever may work. ultimately might earlier message was a bit of patience and lending time to this job. you can't rush to judgment on any of these issues. we really need time to figure out how we can arrive at solutions. political and economic that we

have to take in the process of european integration. our partners have a very strong stake in the investment in europe, which we wish to protect and have an environment in invite -- which is vital for our competitiveness. them a statement on this greater process. it is really very important to watch the dynamics of the final decision by the u.k., be it stepping in.ly also to have a say whether they want -- whether they would like to have a brexit or --

it is the situation in scotland. that will influence the considerations on the eu 27 side. in the second half of 2019. we have to decide whether we need to prepare the election for -- needs to be gradual. think march 2017 may not be the last -- maybe the last deadline. >> do we have a microphone? >> thank you.

of the like to ask any ambassadors who would like to respond, i think both the u.k. and eu have agreed on one thing. and that its inter-eu immigration is a bad thing. the rest of the eu says no, freedoms have to go together. you cannot have the good parts without the bad parts. can you change the narrative to say the immigration is one of the best? >> would anyone like to --

>> i don't know whether you can change the narrative. immigration is such a powerful paradigm right now. maybe just a reminder how this came about. 2004 the eu accepted 10 mostly eastern european countries. there was a measure to stabilize eastern europe. it was one of those assets of the european union to prove it is a project of peace, stability and prosperity, more than economic clout. many leaders said it is to early to grant them freedom of settle down and

exercise their profession. most of the countries agreed to have a transition of seven years . were two countries that did not accept that waiver. they said welcome, they should come. so they came from poland and other countries. it was a self-inflicted wound. later on there was some resentment against the eu immigration. stage i think it is safe to say this immigration benefited not only immigrants, but also the economy. it is not a story to change the

narrative, but it is useful to remember that story. >> i think peter is absolutely right. you had very large numbers of the european union. still living there, working there, although they went back in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. there is no resentment in ireland over this. speaking, intra-european migration is not a problem in europe. the populist criticism tends to focus a lot more on extra european migration, particularly with the refugee crisis and asylum-seekers.

i think it is important to make a distinction that most people of the european union think the freedom of movement of people is an and or miss benefit. i think we have a new generation in europe, which takes for granted so much of this. us who have actually ,ived through immigration capital controls, controls on -- controls on unemployment, how far we have come in europe and what we have built. now people take that and move so seamlessly. to note theesting generational difference in the voting pattern. interpret hows to the u.k. people voted, but it is interesting to note that the majority of young people tend to favor strongly -- and it was the older generation.

i think many young people in europe wishes to maintain this possibility of freedom of movement. >> how well-suited is the european union and highly technocratic organization. is there really a responsibility that the member states haven't taken. migration, refugee crisis, a different intensity of policy preferences depending on what this -- what the experiences are. how well-suited -- european institution and european parliament. house suited is europe? what exactly can they do to

engage? brussels is held in as much as washington and europe. at the end of the day it is difficult for the people in in the subnational democracy. we have a common issue of the european union, the institutions are the creatures of what member states collectively have wanted to build as a form of european governance. at the end of the day, it is for the national politicians to explain their citizens and benefits. and why this is ultimately in their best interest. need a renewed effort of

communication. delivered, what it does not do, what is responsible and not responsible for. when we get better outcomes by doing it together we should do it together. should be 100% responsible for that. it was very much the responsibility of national politicians and the european institutions are absolutely not going to be convincing. >> i do agree. principle insic which is at union,

the most effective level, the most convenient level between europe and the national basis. we have to focus the european union on this core business. what should we do at the european level? be -- we areng to old countries, old nations. furthermore let's face it. we are a wave of nationalities. maybe they are afraid of globalization. we have to find the right balance. let's do what is necessary to do at the national level.

you ask how can an elaborate organizational structure that the eu has really counter the rights? this is the challenge not only they have but a common challenge of the liberal western democracies. it is a challenge of the west. it is certainly a rather dramatic challenge. aspects to it. there are losers of globalization. there are losers.

we have to win back those losers. we have social tools, economic tools. i think we have better placed many aspects in europe. we have a more elaborate social system. our -- our welfare state system looks better. have that, much more difficult to address, the loss of identity. that is something we struggle with. idea ofwe harmonize the a common europe that should be on our house. there is no easy answer to that. that is one of the biggest challenges.

>> this has been a fantastic conversation. we are unfortunately about out of time. i did want the opportunity to maybe offer a silver lining as to what or whether this experience provides a silver lining or opportunities. if you can identify maybe one or of what those silver linings may be, we have a lot of students here. they may be able to create jobs. >> optimism is duty.

and i always remain optimistic. not likely to have many opportunities. we can certainly make the best of it. we can ensure it does the least damage. it is a decision that is going to leave us slightly poorer. i think we will all work diligently with the british this,ment to get with both the exit and building of a new relationship. weaker andult is slightly diminished. a nuclear weapon state, a state with huge diplomatic experience

and adding a lot to our collective value. the right ofioning the bridge people to decide. the silver lining in deed will be to figure out how to do this in the best way possible. my overall conclusion is this is either fort outcome europe or the transatlantic alliance. we will all work diligently to make the best we can out of what is nonetheless the best outcome. >> thank you very much. in spite of the brexit referendum and outcome, i think is then challenge confidence of the european union's, and including u.k.

population. feel their own -- the seconde -- we arectually really being challenged by other forms of governments. this is the main challenge of the transatlantic agenda. events fought different to form -- explain the benefits. >> any opportunities for consolidating opinion with one less chair around the table?

>> it is a very good escape goat. enjoyed to be accused of blocking -- from time to time we were blocking it. tableemistry around the wethe european concert -- have a right to be emotional. be the european union in the u.k., frankly it sounds weird. they were our best enemies.

last point, now the time is to responded to the concerns of our citizens. maybe i'm going to be controversial, but we have to to decide what are the bird -- what are the borders of europe. have a lot oft space. we also need to defend our citizens and welfare state. something to diff -- something -- weerstand in the u.s. have to defend our welfare state. the european market shouldn't be

a social jungle. it shouldn't be a tax jungle. we have to defend our values. -- our have to be naive single market is versus some countries out, which are competing on an unfair basis with our economy. be our guest of good summary. be more than ever, the center of our policy. >> no silver lining. we lost an ally, we lost a great free market economy. of freedom.acon

if there is an upside after the decision, it is two things. it is a shock that helps us to refocus. second it was mentioned it may help mobilize the youth. favor -- moste in of all the assets of fear pain union. voice and more of a more -- in europe. >> this is a wonderful conversation. let's give our guests and applause. thank you so much. [applause]

>> if you missed any of the discussion about the impact of brexit on europe, you can see at any time online. the obama administration hosting the italian prime minister. discussing the first ladies fashion style over the past eight years, and the italian u.s. discussedhe u.s. italy -- him outside the embassy in washington dc. >> describe michelle obama's style. >> her state dinner style?

>> and apply that to state dinners. obamahink when mrs. dresses for these occasions, it shows her sensibility -- i feel like it is much more rooted into contemporary hollywood idea of what is glamorous. she is not wearing anything that , butrticularly revealing there is a certain kind of that is whato it we are used to seeing down a red carpet. it is less regal and more glamorous. >> has it changed the last eight years? >> i think her walk has gotten to be a little more relaxed, if that makes sense. in that framework of glamour. when i think that for the very

, the dress dinner was gorgeous. her hair was up. she looked wonderful. then i think to some of the when she wore a dress by carol lina herrera. even though it was a grand dress, there was an insurmountable lead to it. it felt more like glamorous a goodear as opposed to head to toe look. >> what has been the impact been on the role of first lady, but also some have called them diplomatic art on diplomacy. allhe first thing is we want to be proud of the people in the white house.

we want to be proud of their hospitality, we want them to put their best foot forward. she has presented herself in a way that makes most people feel like we can stand up on the world stage alongside folks from france and italy where the notion of fashion is embedded into their culture. these are really momentous moments. the photographs are going to go into the history books. for any design house that is enormous. in theonly puts them public binoculars in a way red carpet stoned, it also puts them in the history books. it lends a certain gravity to what they do.

the american fashion industry is just as important as food, the auto industry, all of the things that go into creating that state dinner. >> how to cheat go about choosing her dress and the designer? >> when we paint each other's my sense is that she wears what she loves. she wears what she feels comfortable in. i do think there is some attention being paid to the country that is being honored, a desire to acknowledge that whoctly with the designers has that ethnicity and their background. sometimes it is a matter of paying tribute to a particular color or flower that is important.

when you are covering the state dinner you wrote that she chose a -- dress. wasn't an apology, but a diplomatic clarification. can you explain? >> now i'm trying term member what the dress looked like. style black mermaid dress, as opposed to the one she chose for the first state dinner. >> it was a beautiful dress. designed byeen sarah burton from a british fashion house. and she is a very -- her first go around mrs. obama got criticism, particularly from the american fashion industry.

she felt that this was one of those occasions when she had the opportunity to elevate american design and to wear a dress by an american designer. many in the fashion industry felt she had missed an opportunity. in many ways it her that she looked outside 7th avenue for the occasion. was an there acknowledgment that it was a misstep. >> do you have a favorite restaurant of past eight years? -- favorite dress of the past eight years? >> in many ways it was rather traditional. i'm also fond of the last one she. it was such a surprise.

one of the things she does quite well and where is people are doesn't just-- she go with design houses that have been around for decades. maxwell hadn't been in business for more than a year. had not been in business for a long when she first reached out to him. she really is supporting small >> -- smallrea businesses. >> thank you for your time. how did the state visit come about with the italian prime minister? is a sign of the special

relationship between the united states. between president barack obama and the prime minister. >> how did it really gets for what could be the president's last state dinner? long-standing traditional relationship between italy and the united states. we have very strong important communities here in the states. viewsaders share the same on many international topics. democracies have to stand together. both the united states and italy have a special responsibility. >> why now? it has been eight years. italy will be a member of the united nations security council. next year we will be celebrating 60 years of the eu.

that italy talks about the importance of european immigration. i think the european broader framework will -- >> describe our relationship, the u.s.-italian relationship. where are we working together? >> in many fields. we have military standing side by side. we share responsibilities between our fight on terrorism. we want to tackle the global issues ranging from climate change to migration. where -- countries these are issues were countries with great traditional -- share the same approach.

>> what is going on as you prepare for the state dinner? it is active see and lively, there is a great sense of excitement. we have many things to care about. we are particularly excited and happy. >> the prime minister, what kind of leader is he? >> he is a talented leader. very dynamic. the youngest prime minister in italy. of italianhe sense personality. i'm sure the american audience the come to know and love young guy and the way it will be here with his spouse. >> americans will see him here with his wife.

americans will see the pageantry that goes into the types of visits like this. what is the coordination like between the prime minister's office and embassy here? -- there are so many details to take care of. as i said it is a celebration. i'm happy we can share >> in the special protocol for the italian prime minister? >> we will try to follow the different procedures, and i think what really matters is that we consider this as a celebration of a long-standing friendship. it is also important to draw a common agenda. >> what is that future agenda

looking like? what is the common ground? what will be two leaders talk about in the joint news conference? >> they may draw a line in the many different topics and challenges. the leaders share the same approach, meaning we do consider the globalization -- we do consider that globalization come on the part of leaders, requires great care. there are many opportunities ahead of us. does the prime minister have concerns that he will talk to the president about behind closed doors? >> yeah, the two leaders know each other very well. they have had many different meanings in different international forums. they know each other very well. what the prime minister will bring here is