we kind of need to all work together to make sure we're passing sensible legislation. >> social media is being used increasingly as a platform for communication and outreach but this raises other challenges that need to be combated. while some agree there is a need to regulate social media we need to appreciate the vast reach and power of the first amendment. >> our founding fathers had the vision and foresight as drafting this amendment as the first amendment because they recognized the need to probability the ability of public citizens to opine without fear of prosecution. what better way to use first amendment rights than by using social media to express the diverse values and opinions of our world. >> to watch all the prizewinning documentaries in this year's student cam competition, visit studentcam.org. ♪ >> next, a debate on nationalism

versus globalism with nigel farage and present a fox -- vicente fox. this is about 1.5 hours. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> welcome to what i hope is the most thought-provoking event you have attended in a very long time. i am the director for the center for enterprise and markets, and it is our pleasure to be the institutee steamboat ur ons liberty to

globalism versus nationalism. as an initial mc and quickly i will get out of the way so we can listen to our esteemed speakers and our moderators eat. the center focuses and promotes research related to enterprise and markets using an interdisciplinary lens to examine how individuals, organizations, and markets can flourish. we focus on developing curriculum to help future leaders and influencers develop engage intity, and we taking our research and curriculum to apply to know what problems. this is part of our initiative to bring reasoned and respectful

discourse to campus. i want to introduce the president who has been supportive of these initiatives. i am going to have him not only welcome our guests to the event, but also spend a few minutes providing us the context of why events such as these are so integral to the campus fabric. so please join me first and foremost in welcoming and giving a big hand to president wallace sloan. [applause] welcome, everyone to this , discussion and debate on nationalism and globalism. begin by thanking cindy snyder for her support and bringing together the snyder center with the steamboat institute. the steamboat institute's

mission is to inspire american greatness. and because of her bringing us together, we are able to present the snyder center is able to present this discussion and debate. i would like to welcome very briefly, because the panelists will be introduced at more length later we have the former vicente fox of mexico. we have nigel farage, a member of the european parliament, and the moderator is a member of the editorial board of the wall street journal. and she is mary kissel. give them a round of applause, please. [applause] >> i'd like to spend five minutes or less try to reflate -- trying to briefly set the context for this debate.

i think it's important i do what she told me to do. [laughter] >> i think it is significant that the professor, she has all sorts of teaching awards and holds an distinguished chair partnership. she is a naturalized american from india. here i am standing before you, a , a latino asian, also came to this country, and i am a proud, naturalized american. i say that because that is what is so special about america. that is what makes this debate so special. it is one of the most fraught times, one of the most polarized

times in our country and around the world. this incredible amount of instability, -- incivility, of people not able to listen respectfully, even though they disagree, without demonizing the other side. there is paralysis. in that context, i think it is important to set the stage before this debate. because just yesterday, 50 years and one day ago, martin luther king was killed. and he was the one who shared with us that vision, that someday, his children and by extension, our children, will someday be judged not by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. [laughter] >> i apologize for that fundamental mistake. [laughter] >> and then, about 35 years

afterwards, a young senator gave an electrifying speech in which she said, "there is no white america, no black america, no latino america, and no asian america. there is only united states of america." he became our 44th president. and i would think they were both inspired by the writings of frederickears ago of douglass. and his statue graces the front of the plaza. some of the words are inscribed in the brick of the plaza. orationly his immortal "a composite nation," and that , being a multicultural and multiracial nation. what he said, "in this composite nation of ours, under law, there

is no high, no low, no white, no black. there is only a common country. common citizenship. and a common destiny." i mention those three quarts because they set the stage. this is a form of nationalism. this is called exceptional american nationalism. it is an enlightened patriotism, and it is a civic nationalism. other countries are defined by a common language, common race, common geography, but to be an american is a matter of heart. it is a state of mind. it is a commitment to fundamental values that define this country and has drawn millions of immigrants around the world such as me to this country. freedom of expression, free press, freedom of association,

the right to worship who you want, equality. it is liberal democracy, a tolerant, accepting democracy, accepting of other people regardless if you disagree. ,there is expectation of civility and trust, rather than incivility and distrust that permeates the country today. and as you well know, the model that is ingrained in our coins, e pluribus unum, unity and diversity, and the challenge that faces us. you as the next generation faces this challenge. how to have unity amidst the rich diversity we have. and so, let me conclude by saying, higher education coming to all of this we do a fantastic , job in this university in

training you in knowledge and skills to be productive citizens and get a job. i'm not so sure we have been so successful in training you to become responsible citizens who know how to live rightly in a free society. not just us, but all of american higher education. and so, given the fact that my office has gotten to many , many letters and emails asking this debate be canceled. i aswere outraged that president would allow this to proceed. i simply feel terrible. i feel we have not done our job. the role of a university is not to make ideas safe for students. it is to educate students to be safe for ideas even ideas they , disagree with. and so, today, my measure of

mindss is not whether any are changed by this debate. speakers, who have done us a great job, if minds are enlightened today. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, president. that was very inspiring. and at least for me, as a faculty member, very proud to be a part of the university of maryland. i know that i feel the same as many of our faculty and students that at the university of maryland, we do stand for andlligence, reasoned, respectful of the course -- respectful discourse. i want to introduce jennifer

aiken, the director of the steamboat institute and campus liberty tour. and again, a huge thank you, tina, for connecting us together and enabling us to bring this to campus. jennifer is going to have the pleasure to introduce our speakers as well and talk a brief moment about the steamboat institute, and then, we will get this show on the road. thank you. [applause] : thank you for that very warm welcome. it is great to be on the maryland campus. i have to tell you, it is an absolute joy working with all of the team at the ed snyder center for enterprise and markets here at the university of maryland. can we have another round of applause? [applause] >> i would like to thank you,

president low, for making me and my husband honorary terps for the evening. we have these very cool pins. very proud to wear these pins on campus. >> unfortunately, the camera is not capturing you. >> do you want me to move earlier? >> if you could just move over. >> here we go. now, we got some good action here. i just want to tell you a little bit about the steamboat institute. i know some of you have never heard of us. we are based in colorado. in the 10 years since our founding, the steamboat institute has earned a nationwide reputation for offering high-quality programs, which provide ordinary citizens like all of us with direct and personal access to our nation 's leaders in journalism, media, government, education, the military and even the , entertainment industry. through innovative programming and providing direct and personal access to leaders on the national and global stage --

, the steamboat institute inspires ordinary citizens to learn critical thinking skills and to use those skills to gain a better understanding of public policy, individual liberty, and the proper role of government. well on monday night, a few days , ago, we kicked off our inaugural campus liberty tour at the university of colorado campus in boulder with an audience of nearly 1000 people, despite the fact it was the men's ncaa march madness final. [applause] we were very happy to have a good crowd despite that. the goal of the campus liberty tour is to bring recent and -- reasoned and respectful debates to college campuses while encouraging critical thinking skills. we believe that critical thinking skills can be developed through diligent effort and practice, much like learning to play the piano or learning to swim. it's something you have to make an effort to work at. our second debate, with

president fox and nigel farage, was held at the university of colorado's colorado springs campus on tuesday night, where we had another 500 people. and tomorrow night, we will have one final debate at lafayette college in eastern pennsylvania. but i like to share with you a quote that was in an article in the cu independent, a student newspaper at cu. a student -- actually, a graduate of cu named connor schofield, said, "i am a pretty liberal person, i would say. and i found myself agreeing with a lot of nigel farage was saying." [applause] say they he went on to , were both very well spoken. having sat through those debates, i agree totally, and you are in for a real treat tonight. our mission with the campus liberty tour is to teach students and all who attend how to use critical thinking skills

to engage in debate that is robust, but always reasoned and respectful. in other words, we want to teach you how to think, not what to think. thank the title sponsor the michael perino , family foundation, for sharing our vision of teaching critical thinking skills and encouraging free speech and debate on college campuses all across america. without their unwavering vision and support, we would not be able to bring this compelling debate this evening. and also, very important, i would like to thank that ed snyder center for enterprise and markets, the snyder foundation, and the snyder family for their incredible generosity in helping this evening. finally, i would like to thank the bipartisan policy center in washington, d.c.

they stepped up as a supporter and are hosting a breakfast tomorrow for our sponsors and speakers. thank you to the bipartisan policy center. and now the reason you are here this evening. president trump's recent move to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports is just his latest policy decision that has disrupted the traditional political order. support for the decision has but -- split conservatives between those who favor free trade and those who want to protect manufacturing jobs. but it's also attracting some liberals who are increasingly skeptical of the merits of trade. but the tariff debate is a microcosm of a broader dispute that is currently dominating public policy. and that is nationalism versus globalism. we have invited two of its best representatives, nigel farage and vicente fox, to debate this issue for our liberty tour. toel farage served from 2001 2016. he was the face of the

successful campaign to take the u.k. out of the european union and the 2016 brexit referendum, positioning the referendum as a start of a global populist wave against the political establishment. mr. farage has been part of the european parliament for southeast england since 1999 and cochairs the europe of freedom and direct democracy group. he has been noted for his sometimes controversial speeches in the european parliament, and his strong criticism of the euro currency. the spectator magazine called mr. farage the most important british politician of the last decade and the most successful. he was shortlisted from times magazine person of the year, but was beaten by donald trump. [applause] jennifer: but give a warm, maryland welcome to nigel farage. [applause]

jennifer: vicente fox was born in mexico city, and was born in a land where the only difference between him and his childhood friends were the opportunities he had. he always remembers from his childhood that one of the harms that can be avoided in a country is poverty. he studied business administration and later received the top management diploma from harvard business school. in 1964, mr. fox joint coca-cola company in mexico and started from the bottom, driving a delivery truck. through perseverance he became , president of coca-cola for mexico and latin america. he served as president of mexico from 2000 through 2006 and he was the first candidate from an opposition party to be elected president following 71 years of monopoly. mr. fox is actively involved in encouraging leadership and credit opportunities for less

fortunate people through central fox, an organization he founded. he and his wife, martha, are also the parents of four adopted children. let's get a warm welcome to president vicente fox. [applause] now, our like to introduce our moderator for the evening. mary kissel is a member of the wall street journal editorial board, specializing in foreign policy and the promotion of free societies. she contributes to the journals of opinion pages, host the foreign policy podcast, and is a panelist on the journal editorial report, a weekly political talk show that i am sure many of you have seen on the fox news channel. mary votes a masters degree in international affairs from the john hopkins international studies, as well as a bachelor's degree in government from harvard.

please give a warm welcome to our moderator for the evening, mary kissel. [applause] ms. kissel: thanks very much. jennifer: let me say one last thing before i turn it over to mary. there will be an opportunity for the audience to ask questions i by way of writing your questions on index cards. the index cards are placed throughout the room, and at 6:45 , we will have volunteers come around to pick up your questions . they will be given to mary, and she will determine which questions she would like to ask our speakers. fill out those index cards if you have a burning question. they will be picked up at 6:45. ms. kissel: thank you, jennifer. thank you very much for that kind welcome. [applause] to thank the want university of maryland and the steamboat institute.

thank you for your introduction. it's very inspiring particularly , to hear president lowe and his defense of free speech. before we get started, i should admit my bias. the wall street journal editorial board is a supporter of free markets and free people. and we are not fake news. [laughter] ms. kissel: so we are going to , kickoff the event tonight, and by the way i hope you realize , the historic figures that are sitting in front of you. president fox, jennifer referenced, was the first president to win an election over the pri, which has been called the perfect dictatorship. and nigel farage, the force behind brexit. many people call brussels the perfect dictatorship. [laughter] to kissel: so, we are going start this evening with short statements. five minutes. i am timing you gentlemen.

from each of our panelists. we will talk about the definitions of nationalism versus globalism. issues, and some of the key people in the news today. president fox, the floor is yours. i am timing you. mr. fox: gracias. muchas gracias. first of all thanks to this , great university. state-of-the-art. to the students and the faculty here present. because you give us the opportunity to come back to the university. as cicero would say, what a blessing it is to come back to university, to come back to the sources of knowledge, and to come back in a way to the fountain of youth, so thank you very much for that. i will advance two concepts have -- that have driven my life, and that certainly are going to be

my sustained ideas through this debate. number one, i am educated all along. shortcut toat the happiness is doing for others, is doing for your community, doing for your nation. and that has been my life commitment. i watched first the corporate world, and then i moved to politics for one simple reason, and that is why we created this first presidential library outside of the united states, right there in the heart of mexico. i would then complete this concept by saying the comparison

tohis position in relation leading and in relation to being a public leader or a leader in government, that you gain respect from people through dialogue, through democratic moves, against what machiavellian would say. they gain respect through exercising power with toughness. in that respect, with a stick, it comes out of fear. that is why they respect you. i think what is part of this important debate. second, to say that half of what you see in front of you -- my

grandfather was born in cincinnati, ohio. he came to mexico in 1945. and, he came to mexico without a penny in his pocket as an immigrant. he found his american dream, in the small place, where we lived for five generations. i wanted to mention that because i am not only part of this nation. i love and respect this nation. i love and respect its citizens. i love and respect the compassionate aptitude all over the world.

i respect this nation because of the leadership throughout the world. that is the united states i know, i have known in the past, and i hope i will be seeing in the future. under this part of ideas, my position in relation to globalization and nationalism is the part from having figures at hand. globalization, technology, democracy, and freedom allows us all over the world to the best ever peak and development, and progress. it is absolutely incredible what has happened in the last 30 years. every single human being has progressed, and many have progressed substantially.

today we live much more years than we used to from 40 or 50 years ago. together with education, and the last quarter of the world -- today middle classes are totally dominant around the world, and income has increased substantially, including in africa and those nations that used to be called poor. progress has been unlimited. yet, we will have to see in the century, many more surprises. my question is, why should we destroy or disrupt the way we have proven to be successful for newer dangers that some call nationalism, that some call -- some say we should go back to

the original state, the nation state, and forget about what we built? we are to debate about the european union. the most successful lock of nations right after world war ii. they have enjoyed the best and highest hundreds of living today. >> a one minute warning, mr. president. >> more or less? [laughter] everybody has access to full medicare and full health attendance. everybody goes to school or university. everybody enjoys income that is outstanding. that is one successful block of nations.

they got together and decided together to build that region, so powerful and so successful in the world. nobody of lodged them, they decided to conform. that is the fiscal block of nations. >> thank you. mr. farage. [applause] >> walk in this area so the camera can get you. >> so this is the safe space? good evening, maryland. this debate is a victory before it begins. the fact is we are having a proper, open debate. boy, there are going to be differences. president fox thinks the european union is a great success. i think it is a anti-democratic monster that is crushing democracy and runic nationstates

and taking away liberty. we have fundamentally different points of views on this issues, but you know something? will be able to debate those issues in a relatively civilized manner. [laughter] >> i want behave badly rotten universities of country. the development of safe space, these narrow zones some of us are confined to. the ida that because somebody else has a different point of view they are basically intrinsically evil, is not what parliamentary democracy is all about. it is not what our great nations fought two world wars and sacrificed so much for.

liberty and democracy is an environment in which we express our opinions, but we equally respect the other side to have their views too. and we do our best, through logic and reason, to make them see good, common sense. all of this got worse after 2016. between shocks of 2016. first, there was the brexit vote, treated by the entire global order as some terrible catastrophe. if that wasn't bad enough -- if that doesn't have people choking on their cornflakes. [laughter] >> when donald j trump did the impossible and became the 45th president of united states.

so much has been said in the mainstream media since those times -- you would think something dreadful what happen to both of our countries. of course, that revolution of 2016 -- something students at the university will be reading about for centuries to come. something happen in 2016, and it was the rebirth of the concept of the nation state. what happened for decades is people tried to build new false, artificial, supranational structures. as the european union in a sense, the prototype for a new form of government -- the globalists wished to impose on all of us. indeed, had the blessed hillary won the election in 2016, i reckon you now would be very closer to that european union.

and further away from the idea of a democratic system that you could vote for people that make your loss -- but you could equally sack people who make your laws. like it or don't like it, men and women across this world want to buy a massive majority to live in a identifiable unit that is the nation. they want their national flags. they want their national anthems. they want their national soccer teams to win the world cup. that is what people want. is the natural, normal human situation. it is the nationstate we pledge our allegiance. to whom, although reluctantly, pay our taxes. it is the nationstate, to whom things go badly wrong, we are prepared to stand up and defend and fight for. don't be frightened by brexit. don't be frightened by trump. just recognize the world changed in 2016. in the future there will be governments with the interest of their own countries first, but equally, what it to work with

friends and neighbors across the globe. yes, that does mean we want to control our borders. it does mean we want to be selective about who comes in this and works and settles in our country. in a world with a terrorist scourge, how can you blame voters who want to do that on their behalf? can we debate these issues of open borders without people suddenly shouting, racist? which is a substitute of having a proper, intellectual debate. the world has changed, globalism got a real kick between the legs and 26 thing, and i will do my best. [applause] >>

i want to see a show of hands in the audience, is the nationstate obsolete? if you think the answer is yes, raise your hands. for the television audience, it was a minority and the audience. your work cut out for you, mr. farage. let's start with the principal mr. farage espoused. that you can be global trade nationstate. is that true, mr. fox? >> absolutely not. i am for a nationstate, of course. mexico is a nationstate. brazil, argentina, germany, britain, united states. no conflict with that. but we have discovered joining

more than one -- fine, and by joining five, so working together, teamwork, as you do in corporations that are successful -- you progress and develop much faster and much higher. no question about nationstate. i don't think it should be questioned -- the great associations and partnerships we have built together. one of them is the nation. for one dream, the dream of the founding fathers. believe, pretty soon we

might have an election here. the california exit. today we have in barcelona and catalonia. divide our nations. we are all our patriots. we all believe in our dream. that's the way it works. nothing to do with dividing or forgetting about you 19 the groups. nafta. nafta has been very successful. starts with the united states. was lackingtates competitiveness. it was losing markets around the world. and so, the answer was -- let's bring back those corporations and manufacturers here.

so, general motors, chrysler, ford motor company, there are manufacturing here and went broke, and you had to pay to rescue them out of bankruptcy. how did they come back to the marketplace? by becoming nafta corporations. that is the only way they can compete with mercedes-benz, nissan, toyota, mazda, and all the rest. and they found they can be very competitive and productive by working in canada, mexico, and the united states. >> this is an excellent point, let's go to mr. farage. we'll keep the debate going to quickly so it can ask as many questions as possible. nafta made us competitive. >> hang on a second, we can talk about nafta and the wto, and united nations and nato. we can talk about all these things, which are examples of

nationstates cooperating together on the world stage. while of those organizations can do with reform, i have no problem with any of them or the concept of countries working together. however, that isn't good enough for the globalists. the real globalists want something much more exciting and far better than that. they did in the european union. you cannot be an independent democratic nationstate and a member. of an organization like the european union. why? because they make the laws you have to obey. their court is supreme to yours, and a disciple is fit and proper to live in your country, not your own people. there is nothing, any government or group of citizens in the european union can do to change european law, because all of that is in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats.

actually, this debate of a globalist future or nationalist future is really a battle of bureaucracy versus democracy. the globalists treat democracy with contempt. just look at what they speak about -- those who voted for brexit or voted for trump. we are all ignorant neanderthals. >> you didn't vote for trump? >> i wasn't allowed to. i would have voted early and often. i thought it was a change that was needed. we have a nuanced argument here, that none of these associations are equal. president fox, i want to ask you about the world trade organization. china was taken in in 2001, it breaks many rules. no one expected such a large part of the wto would also be a rule breaker.

how do you deal with a problem like that? >> first of all, mary do we have -- first of all. >> do we have a mic problem? the audio? >> bueno, bueno. can year in the back? no, he cannot. you will bring the boom mic down. continue, sir. >> where was i? [laughter] >> new said that trump and i don't always agree. this is the main point. he argues that trading is good for everybody and we should do it. keeping our nature of being in

nationstates, but yet we can trade, like this nation has been trading since the beginning of independence. just remember, when washington became president first, the economic decision he talk, -- he took, let's send the jefferson and our best and bright minds went to europe to sell our products. this nation is captured -- the nation developed its economy by trading. trading is a key issue. but trump does not. you think straight and is, i win, you lose. winning, to hell with nafta china, and everybody else. you notto recall to long ago global u.s. corporations came out and they forced us to open.

so we had to bring coca-cola instead of bringing our great tricks we have, nectar drinks in mexico. have to eat hamburgers and hotdogs instead of tacos and talked us. -- tortas. so united states companies conquered everywhere, and now they are not able to compete because of many different reasons. now you say let's build a wall, because mexico is taking away our jobs. you have lost the job because of manufacturing. we lost competitiveness. and now you are saying, force mexico to increase salaries. i hope we do it as much as possible. but economies don't work by executive orders. finally, this guy invents a story, the bad mexicans are coming now, they're going to invade the united states.

congress, give me money for the wall. jesus christ. [laughter] [applause] fortunately today, the president of mexico told trump we are going to stop negotiating with you if you don't respect us and don't respect or se will not deal with you. that is what, russia, and europe is saying. if you want to only win yourself in trading, we're not going to accept your tariffs if you start breaking down what we built. wto has been striving to be a great institution to coordinate

and that nations handle trading. to avoid abuses from any one single nation. if this nation doesn't want any more nafta, good for you. enjoy it. we have 48 trade agreements with economies around the world, and we already started trading with argentina and brazil to buy our corn. we by 40 billion u.s. dollars of corn to this nation to farmers. where are they going to sell their core now? -- corn now? we are going to get it from argentina and brazil, and everybody is reacting to something that is wrong, to a guy who doesn't understand. which is the economy, which is trading, which is harmony among

nations. >> thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> the idea that trump is against trade is a complete distortion of the truth. of course trump's for trade, but he wants trade to be fair and reasonable. >> is in trade by definition fair? >> i spent 20 years in the business before getting involved in politics. i had a proper job before politics, it is pretty rare these days. i know about the metals industry. what the chinese did is increase the production of steel at a time there was no domestic demand an international demand. they crashed the price of steel, and my country, major steelworks, the did it not to make money, they did it as a big strategic global play. that was not fair trade. and trump puts tariffs on chinese steel, and everyone swings, is that dreadful?

particularly the european union, who themselves but tariffs on chinese deal last year. but they are the good guys because they are the globalists and trump is the bad guy because he is the nationalist. there is gross hypocrisy here. to should america off from the rest of the world, economically, it is nonsense. whether you like the thought of a wall on the mexican border or not, this big beautiful wall that apparently is going to be built -- it is a symbol of one thing to control borders. i can tell you something, their majorities of the population is now in every small country in the west want to have border controls. and having border controls does -- doesn't mean your anti-migrant or anti-foreigner, it just means you want people to come in who speak your language, assimilate in your society, respect your values, be an economic benefit the economy, and obey the law.

what on earth is wrong with that? [applause] >> walls don't work. the chinese wall failed in avoiding the manchus and the mongols and what they did, they both that wonderful, beautiful wall at a huge cost, and it didn't work. this beautiful thing that is going to be built here if congress approves -- if you are willing to pay for the wall. $35 billion. we are not paying for that -- wall. [applause] also, if you paid for it, good for you. frosh, moderators privilege.

gentlemen this is a live broadcast, please watch our language. fox: i will finish my comment. the way to have border controls is different. it is not with the army, it is not with walls. it is using wisdom and intelligence, like president bush and myself did. like mexican congress and to great senators and congressmen, kennedy and mccain, who presented a deal to congress. that has been sitting there since 12 years ago. the answer to migration control -- we want order on our borders. we mexicans want order in our borders, same with any other nation. but the way is not through that, and the big problem, and the next time you grant me -- it is migration. this nation was built by

immigrants. mexico and latin america were built by immigrants. and, against that, building nations with immigrants is the worst happen, we state they are evil people and are not welcome anywhere. where is the compassion? and who is going to own this world? and you're going to build a wall that is so high? the hungry and desperate who are running away from violence and war, they want to jump any wall. it is not the way to go. [applause] >> i want you to address the

specific question about britain. britain has very high taxes. britain has regulations that are domestic, not from the european union. >> that depends on how you judge it. >> president fox make a compelling argument that competitiveness is the key to prosperity is taking the poor and making them rich. the britain have to leave the european union make itself competitive? >> the european single market says everything in the member states have to be the same. they say they want the same rules and regulations on finance. the same environmental rules. the same taxation. that is not competitive. if you think about it, it is fundamentally anti-competitive.

what is happening is big global politics has been as successful as it has, until 2016, aided and abetted in multinational companies and one of the big wall street banks. we are not living in a age of free market capitalism. where living in an age of global corporatism. if hillary won the election, she wanted america to join a common market, namely america to join in with the european single market. this is not competitive, it is anti-competitive. may benefit the rich corporations who want the rules around their own industry, would free labor to get as cheap as possible labor. this does not benefit normal, ordinary people in britain or anywhere in the west. 70% of our laws were not made by us. we had a say in that, but we could be outvoted. in the run-up to referendum on the previous 50 occasions the

, british government tried to change legislation and we lost on all 50 occasions. not only economically is brexit a liberation but some things are , worth more than money. you can't put a price on freedom, liberty, democracy, and being able to run your own country and be proud of that and be the master of your own country. i'm delighted because normally, you see, whatever america does, american music, american food, american fashion. we nearly follow every think you do a couple of years later. but in 2016, perhaps for the first time since the american revolution, you followed something we did. we had brexit and then you had trump. we were the trailblazers. we are all must 7:00 but not quite yet. thank you for all of these questions. many are terrific and will try to get to as many as possible. since we have so many student

questions, let me start with president fox. this is specific to you. does the mexican government approved people from central america to cross the southern mexican border? >> of course, we have our own regulations for migrating. to your knowledge, mexico sends back many more central americans that come into mexico that are trying to get the united states. year half a million every and of those, mexico turns back for the thousand. 400,000. and the rest manage to come along and get here. but let me tell you that the problem of migration the problem

of borders should be discussed on economic terms. because what happens is, for instance, at the beginning of nafta, on the mexican side, you would make one dollar and learn how to swim and cross the river or learn to jump walls, then you will be making $10. who would not go for 10 instead of 1. the economic problem we have there, why you don't have a problem between canada and united states? because it is a 1-1. and that's what europe did bring up these remaining -- the guys that were bringing up to the income of germany and the gap has narrowed consistently. now that was the situation. 25 years after nafta, the wage is 25-1.

this explains why there is so many less people coming from mexico to the united states than the ones going back. nafta has accomplished its goal. let operate mexico to make it a solid partner. make it a consumer market over 120 million people. and that is being accomplished. now mexico is there. we have full employment right now. yes, we have just in my region with 10 million mexicans -- 11 huge state of the art manufacturing plants. and there are three american companies there. and they come from japan, europe, korea. why? because we became competitive. we learned our lesson. we were told you have to go to

school and survive in the jungle of economic development and we did it. but now that the rest of the world and mexico became competitive, he is saying, hey, hey. you cannot compete like this. we are losing. we are having a surplus and not having it. and then you say mexico took away the jobs. that is a lie, an absolute lie. those jobs were lost to technology. those jobs were lost to innovation. those jobs were lost because these workers on the automobile manufacturing line didn't have the vision to go to a community college and learn about other things that they could make them competitive.

manufacturing would not have been this nation here in the future. it would not even be here in mexico. manufacturing is a past wave. now it's technology. and pretty soon, no more jobs. no more jobs in five or 10 years. how are we going to do it altogether. i hope kids will come with bright ideas as long as trump let you think about yourselves and. you have to think freely and innovate and think about when there aren't going to be enough jobs for everybody. >> there was net zero immigration to mexico when the u.s. economy went into decline, just to underline one point of fact.

let's pick up this competitive argument with another question from the audience and it concerns theresa may. >> oh, dear. [laughter] >> based on her failure in the snap elections last summer, how much confidence do you have in may to lead britain in brexit negotiations and to make britain competitive? >> it is very important when you are abroad that you don't talk down your national leader, but she's hopeless. [laughter] here's the problem. theresa may is a nice woman but a classic career politician.

nothing commercially outside of it. and not working in charity. or run a business, goodness knows. she is a career politician and did not vote for brexit. and brexit is the biggest political change in our country for a very, very long time. it is an instruction that says to the government, we want you to turn around the ship of state by 180 degrees and you can't do that unless you actually believe in what you are doing. she doesn't believe in what she's doing. when she's asked the question, how would you vote if it is a referendum. she cannot say she would vote leave because she doesn't mean it. we are heading towards the big moment and it is march 29 next year that is when we are due at 11:00 to leave the treaty of p.m. rome. after that she will have us wrapped up in anticompetitive linkages with european law and european economy. despite all of it, we will get over the line on march 29 under her leadership. it will not be a victorious charge. we will limp over the line on

crutches. we are leaving the european union on march 29 next year and we will become a normal country like you guys in america where we elect our own people and make our own laws and can't coment soon enough and she can slide off and retire. >> specifically to the students, would you like to live within a wall, four walls? is that what you want? >> no. >> einstein and thinking like all the creators, the googles and microsofts. there are hundreds of thousands, not to say u.s. millions of americans that work outside and abroad because there is talent because we like to share with , other people.

that's natural and that is happening all over the world, this exchange. this is why i strongly believe in globalization. i strongly believe incorporate world of america that has so much development and so much wealth in the rest of the world. i believe washington is not the swamp. i have been three days in washington and i have not seen a swamp except in the white house. [laughter] president fox, just to follow on another question, do you think a nationalist wave could occur in mexico as it has in the united states and in the united kingdom, an anti-globalization reaction? >> the situation in mexico and

latin america is totally different. our defenses, when we had on the 20th century, demagog pop lift -- demagogue populist leaders like if you tip their own -- evitaf vito perrone -- perron. they come with answers and can fix everything and get the jobs back to you and move the economy 5% 10%. all those promises is what made latin america lagged way, way behind. because we sat down and we believed the dictator. he told us, you don't have a job. i'm going to get it for you. he told us, you don't have health. i'll do it for you, i'll build hospitals. promises and promises. and we believe them. what a difference you see in this nation. i go as far outside to put myself in the school and i use

my mind as i'm brilliant. so it's on me. i was visiting president grave -- president kennedy's grave today. what a message. don't ask your nation of your president what he is going to give to you, ask yourselves, what you are going to give your nation and the world. this is what the thinking of this nation. and this new narrative, which by the way, we must be very careful because they never tell us the full truth, i would like to ask senor trump what he is doing, what america he wants. he wants an america with a wall and everybody is controlled and everybody is supervised to do what he thinks is the right thing. he wants everybody to be a christian. he wants everybody to be on his philosophy, not even democrats or republican.

is that the dream nation that he is thinking of? i'm asking him the question. and i ask him to tell us where he is taking britain. >> hold on. moderators are rocketed. so you do or do not think that a populist like mr. farage, will he win the election? that's the worst part of latin america. he has solved the problem of 120 million. everybody's going to be rich, everybody's going to have a job, everybody will do well. he will not win because i'm working for him not to win. >> mr. farage.

>> all well and good, president fox talks in tones about free movement of people and no walls and no borders and travel around the world and we must be compassionate to anybody that is coming from a poor country. it sounds absolutely lovely. but that kind is what mrs. merkel said.gela as many of you want to come, we can cope in germany. when you saw the lines, there weren't many women or children. there weren't many elderly. 75% of them were men under the age of 30. many of them came from countries where they would not even qualify for refugee status. what have they brought. plenty of them are good hard working people. but sadly, isis and others have used that opportunity to bring terrorism onto the shores of europe.

and i say to you, president fox, whatever your view of the world, the growth of radical islamic extremism is what the governments want to protect them. and that is what democracy is all about. and i think it is still, i think too much of our mainstream media and our traditional political class do not resist the desire and will to protect our borders to make our future safer and the politicians are wrong. [applause] we are not racists. isn't that grown-up? the idea that we should stop terrorists come into our country. i was the first person in britain to recommend we give some syrians refugee status. people who genuinely qualified as refugees.

i'm afraid we've lost this debate. no wonder brexit happened. no wonder trump happened. i want to get to as many student questions as possible. if your ideas are so great, why haven't more european nations voted lead the union? >> look at victor all bond. apart from macron getting elected, in every country in europe there is a populist wave. we believe in our countries and democracy. the european union's days are numbered. super nationalism's days are numbered.

people want nation state control and it's right, healthy, and the future. >> president fox. we'll save the clapping to the end. i want to get to as many student questions as possible. another student question on mr. farage's theme. how do we deal with the issue of asylum seekers. mr. farage brought up a good point. asylum seekers, like germany. >> i'm totally and absolutely for order at the borders. security and safety at the borders. and i used two examples of how you can deal with that. one is nafta. nafta became an economic issue and what we presented, i mean president bush and senator kennedy and senator mccain had evolved and said this nation

500ing at 2.5% a year needs additional laborers. 200 --u're growing at 2.5% that's a fact. , now how do you regulate that? and we did in that initiative in congress. when the economy is growing, you bring as many as you need, like this nation did with the program right after world war. this nation took all the women and put them in factories and put them into work so the men could be at war. they invited two million mexicans to come and work here. and when the world war was over they kicked them back. no fringe benefits, no gratification and no nothing. what you need, you import.

now, that import works today. now china, china developed territory. the part that is developed with 300 million families middle class today. they brought people from the interior only if it is needed in the developed areas. if it is not needed, they don't let them come in. they have to have a passport. you can regulate with world sense. i am happy when i help a human being. i cannot seeing those boys dying. now, that doesn't mean like he says that we cannot solve. it's growing the amount of , people that is moving, looking for a better life. and we must regulate. but let's work it together.

the best answer is the one i exercised. let's get to the roots of the problem. and let's solve the problem in their home, in their country and bring up development. and that's what nafta did for mexico. that's why we are not getting that many immigrants coming. and i created plans to develop central america so we can have the jobs there and develop that part and we don't get the migration. i know it's difficult. but worst to let people die of hunger. something must be done. [applause] >> president fox says that we have to deal with the problem at its source. mr. farage, of course, the obvious source of the problem today at least in the middle east is syria and again another

pertinent question from the audience. in george washington's farewell address he warned against entangling alliances. does the globalist viewpoint go against this? >> i wish we listened to washington. 01:12:52 mary don't you need -- >> i talked about nato and all these structures we have where we have nation states can cooperate with our friends and neighbors to deal with joint problems and make those decisions. that is different than what has happened in the european union and what the blessed hillary and others wanted to give away the decisions. and by the way, when we're talking about poverty and about the problems with source.

the one thing that president trump and i will agree on, is that the european union has been a disaster for black africa. they put huge tariffs on flowers and pillage their fishing waters and what we ought to be doing in terms of thinking about the developing world by giving foreign aid, very little of which ends up in the right place, if we want to help the poor countries of the world, there are tariffs that need to be cut. we need to trade their way out of poverty and i would like to see an independent britain outside the european union leading the world in doing this. foreign aid isn't working but trade and technology just might. [applause] another question for mr.

garage. is no deal better than a bad deal? you about the street and i say ok. i got a really bad deal for you, do you want it? [laughter] >> half of these people are going to say yes. did theresa may have a real job? been a european parliamentary member for 20 years? >> i spent 20 years in business, most of it working for american companies but the last nine years, i paid my taxes and i have more experience than everybody that talks about this european issue. i feel quite strongly about that. [laughter] look, the point is, when you go into a negotiation, the other side needs to know, if you don't get what you want, they are walking out of that. that is how negotiations work.

they work frankly through fear, fear that the other side is going to walk out of the door and what theresa has said, however beastly you are to us and appalling the deal is, we will being good brits simply accept it. i'm sick to death of us being talked down to by french bureaucrats. and unless we get an outbreak of common sense in pretty quick time, we should simply walk. >> it's misleading and when you exchange something, go back to the times of the hunter gatherer. each one tries the correct price, i do this pretty well and very competitive and i want to sell it at $3, you decide if you take it or not.

nobody forces you. that is convenience to go to sides. and same thing that i say in the case of european union. brussels.about who created brussels that he is no rolling a monster? britain, england, germany, france, portugal, spain, all of them, they created that body of administrating the training among all the nations and they and building decided willingly to put that fund where every economy to provide 2% of the gross profit to that huge, that mammoth fund that they decided together that would be addressed to invest in portugal and italy and greece and elsewhere.

upgrade them and bring the level of the rest. and when you see the distribution of the income in europe, it's like this. when you see this division of income and to here, and that is the same distribution among nations. they are very compact. there is not one extremely wealthy and the other poor. it's they try to use compassion and try to work together. a problem presented. migration. i know it might surprise you. more and more are expanding because there is more certifications so farmers cannot produce enough. and that go against civilians and they have to run away from war.

i don't have the solution but i will take a different approach than building a wall. that is selfishness. and there isn't enough capacity to compete by doing everything yourself. i cannot imagineford, gm and chrysler -- you are not going to sell one car outside of the united states and you are going to tax all cars coming from abroad. you will be paying for your car, 30%, 40%, 50% more because the imported car has a tax and the local car has a huge tax and not -- huge cost and not competitive. so it's simple reasoning to trade and to win and win. don't go to trade.

you don't go to trade wars. just to win. this sport is not for me. if not the case, we win together by working together. >> thank you. i asked two questions and i will ask you a follow-up again from the audience, how has your experience with the p.r.i. affected your views? can you speak on the trade reform transition from the pre-monopoly to your party. this is a question that lasted -- that perfect estate -- perfect it tatar ship that lasted for 71 years. >> became corrupt and a lousy manager for the country. it was a monopoly. that's what happens with monopolies.

that is the virtue of that. and you are going to try to stay there. you come with these ideas or you are not going to be welcome. that's one thing that happened in mexico. i came back to support. and i know we have that burden on his shoulder of pre-corruption. and he is moving out. so i always vote more for the person and not the ideology. and i end up by saying, you would visit china, they don't fight like dogs and cats here like republicans and democrats do every day. they are pragmatic governments. they work with experts. >> they are authoritarian regimes.

they put them in labor camps. they torture them. >> how smart is democracy because democracy is not delivering. and in britain they are not happy what is going on and what is not happy in the united states and mexico. it's not democracy itself but the people that run democracy that work in democracy. they are not delivering. so i see pretty soon something different. some other way that we are going to reform government and take decisions and how we are going to manage our country. this takes me to a parliamentarian system. and i think it is much better than presidential systems today because you end up like this and you don't advance, because the only reason of politicians is to destroy the order. -- the other. not who brings better ideas but who can destroy parts of the

other. that's what we are creating today. that would not work in the future. we need to have innovation on the political and democratic arena. >> your response? >> i think the globalist cat was just let out of the bag. we heard president fox's contempt for democracy and what people think. i heard in previous debates, he didn't think the brexit result was a fair democratic result. this is what the globalists want. i have no doubt the most of them are terribly well educated and frightfully clever and well funded by multinationals and they think they know better than the ordinary peasants on how we should live our lives. 2016 was not a short-term kickback against that mentality. what we said in 2016 despite chaos and claims of black locusts will descend, we said we

have had enough. we actually want to live democratically in our own nations and cooperate with our neighbors. president fox, you talk about our referendum and democracy. i think in pejorative terms. for many of us, whether in this room or outside actually the vote is the most powerful thing we possess. we value it. we showed in 2016 how potent and powerful that can be and i am convinced that 2016 was not as you would have it believe, a short turn outburst of anger. actually, it is the political revolution that would go sweeping through the west over the next few years. [applause] >> unfortunately, we are out of time.

we would like to have another vote to see if we change any minds. is the nationstate obsolete? if you think yes, please raise your hand. >> sorry, i cannot buy that for him actually come as a reversal, neither of us would have abolished the nationstate and the true globalist actually do.

journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning we will discuss president trump's decision to have members of the national patrolling the u.s.-mexico border. then that jason all my are and tom davis on ways to make government more effective, civil, and less partisan. also robert atkinson challenging whether big business is really a bad thing for america. sure to watch c-span washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. >> next week, facebook ceo mark

zuckerberg will testify before senate and house committees on facebook's handling of user information and data privacy. 2:15 eastern on c-span3. on wednesday at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. watch live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org.