stuart: it's a moment of national humiliation. >> it is. calls for second referendum vote are getting louder and louder. >> looks like theresa may's days as uk prime minister are somewhat limited. we'll see who takes the job. >> bojo. >> a huge dale for us. neil, it is yours. neil: start do you think if they voted on it again they would vote the same way? >> no. i think if they voted on it again i think they would say we stay in europe. neil: would the markets -- i'm trying to get a sense, would the markets welcome that if they stayed in the european club. stuart: i think the markets would. ashley agrees with me. oust breakaway people would not. neil: amazing what happened in two years. >> two years. neil: we'll follow that. sentiment is building that theresa may has serious selling

here. two cabinet ministers quit. including the guy. the devil is in the details they say. she will try to explain the brittish position. she is quickly losing the confidence of her party. when that happens, you are no longer head of your party. presumably someone else takes over. boris johnson is among some mentioned and there are a host of others that could lead a post-"brexit" reverend today. that was supposed to change europe whether collectively they want to be a part of club was considered enviable of the world when they rallied around a currency would rival the dollar. it got close a couple times but never able to close the deal. saying in the european club bring as host of possibilities too that might not be favorable. there are a number of developments in this country. i would be remiss stocks under pressure. particularly in technology,

we've been telling you about, certainly stuart has earlier. amazon and facebook and walmart and this idea that maybe the appetite for spending won't be there. even as energy prices tumble. the gyrations today, notwithstanding. the feeling seems to be that what is bad for energy drillers and energy companies and some of the big, you know, energy powerhouses is good for you, the consumer. it frees up more money for to you do more shopping, more christmas shopping, more to the point. that it will help the economy. that is sort of been like the push and pull with lower energy prices that they eventually lead those energy prices to go back up because they lead to a spurt in economic activity. we've not even that. this has been relatively short-lived. only weeks ago we were at multiyear highs on oil. just sort of take a snapshot and hope it doesn't yellow on you too fast. let's get the read ahead of theresa may speaking in britain.

5:00 p.m. there. it is about noon on the east coast. when she does speak we'll take you there. i may rudely interrupt my friends, gary b. smith and winnie sum. she has serious selling to do saying she is on the right track. brits polled on the subject don't think she is. i was asking my british colleagues in there was another vote over again would they vote to separate from europe they said no. what is your sense what is happening right now? >> our sense this is something decided on over two years ago. we may decisions in our clients portfolios to reflect that. so, you know, investors don't like uncertainty and so we're seeing, a lot of that trickle out into our markets here. so it's a global economy. so give us some direction so we know how to proceed with money back into the market or how we invest in portfolios. investors want to know what is

going on. stuart: gary, to that point, what do you want to hear? if certainty is always an important issue for the markets, as much certainty as they can get, what do you want to hear or see? >> i guess always depends, neil, if your perspective is long term or short term if it is short term, you would say let's get rid of "brexit," go back to the stable environment we had under the eu if it is long term, i'm one of those people who thought an independent united kingdom not under the thumb of brussels would be best for them, best for their economy. they had a lot more flexibility but you know, change is difficult. it is like we, you know, over here we fought the war for independence and then after you know, a year or two of it being kind of hard, we said, no, we'll stay under british rule. that would be sad i think. you know, i think for the long term perspective i would like to see them carry forward with some

far-reaching "brexit" plans. i can understand how the volatility is kind of shaking people at this point. neil: you know, winnie, besides what is going on in britain, we're not certainly dismissing it, a far bigger, more pressing concern in this country what happens later this month when the president meets with his chinese counterpart at the g20, whether we get progress there. is it your sense, whatever is going on with "brexit," you strike a deal with the chinese, even start promising talks toward one, would that all offset all of this? >> that is a great question. i don't know. you're talking about two very different political leaders, very different types of business sense and the way, can we play well with the chinese? i don't know. but i would say that there is still a lot going on within china, how they handle their own economic plan and they monitor the companies that we even

invest in, so it will be interesting but i think at this point we need to be able to play well with china and we'll see if the president can negotiate that for us. neil: let me bring in former imf official desmond lock lan into all of this. good to have you, thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. neil: let's talk about a little bit about theresa may and what she has got to do in these remarks. many say the very leadership of her party and that of britain is at stake. is that extreme or what do you think? >> no, certainly her leadership is now at stake. there have been a number of conservative mps asking the committee of 1922 to hold a confidence vote. looks like one is heading towards a confidence vote. even if she survives that confidence vote there is the more difficult task of getting agreement on this deal through a parliament that is highly skeptical about it for a whole variety of reasons.

neil: desmond, what is making this so difficult? i know you have to satisfy, you know, a lot of different interests, to say nothing of countries like ireland, keeping them happy, keeping scotland happy, i understand that. this tended to be a lot harder than i think the original plan seemed to lay out in, you know, two years ago. what happened? >> well, the deal that she has got has managed to unite the whole of the united kingdom into the idea this is a bad deal. different people think it's a bad deal for different reasons. the remainders think it's a bad deal because it would lead to the exit of the uk. those in favor of a hard exit are very disturbed by the fact that the uk will remain in a customs union for a number of years. there is no clear way they get an exit. so they feel they betrayed their

electoral promises this would be a clean, easy deal and the united kingdom could go off negotiate trade deals with everybody else. so they're not getting it. to complicate matters even more that theresa may's junior partner in her coalition government is the irish democratic union party and they're concerned that they're going to be treated differently from the rest of the united kingdom in an eventual deal. so they are talking about, this could mean the dissolution of the united kingdom. so for very different reasons, you have got everybody who has agreed that this is a bad deal, you know, which makes it very difficult for me to see how she is going to get parliamentary approval of this. neil: very, very interesting. i just, viewers just tuning in right now, if you're wondering what we're looking at here in london, british prime minister theresa may is supposed to address reporters where we stand on the so-called "brexit" talks, about britain's formal exit or

planned timing of said exit for rest of europe when it comes to economic matters and the rest. keep in mind, europe always had sort of a rift with britain when it came to joining the euro, for example, the single european currency. the brits never did. they kept their pound. they never wanted to change that although they were in sync with the european union and goals of the european union to speak as one economic block. two years ago when it came to "brexit," two years ago this past summer, when brits surprised the world voting in favor of separating from the rest of the european community and going on their own. now the devil has proved in the details making sure they could do at that to everyone's satisfaction increasingly i think as you were just hearing from no one's satisfaction. no matter what the prime minister does, she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

that is hardly a ringing endorsement for the uk pound which has been tumbling. actually easing up a little bit earlier this morning against the dollar. there is still concern about the european union itself. now they might be snickering and laughing at brits, you know, trouble and all of that, but the fact of the matter is, the euro, european interests through the union still no picnic. we still have problems with italy forcing through a budget that doesn't abide by any of the european union demand for austerity and the like. so they're not happy campers. spain is at best a tangential player, portugal, i could go on and on to say the club the brits wanted to revoke from, is is still a hurting puppy. gary b. smith, let's say this thing blows up in theresa may's face, maybe starting from scratch with another vote on the whole thing, what they call a mull fan to -- mulligan to take

another shot at it, would that do the trick especially if voters had their druthers they would vote the opposite way this go-round, what do you think? >> depend on what do you mean that will do the trick. what the trick is. i suppose if they went through another vote you will have two effects. one is the effect on our stock market, and my gosh, it would be volatile i'm sure in the days coming up and the days going forward but again then -- neil: i'm sorry to jump on you my friend, wouldn't we benefit as an alternative to that craziness? in other words they can't get their act together in england, europe is all over the map, china is slowing down, i'm extending to asia, the u.s. that seems like a good place to park money. >> that would be my initial reaction by here is the difference from 20, 30 years ago, we're so interconnected now the economies. we rely on china. we rely on the united kingdom.

we rely on russia and vice versa. it is not like, well we're a separate island and we can go on our own. that would be donald trump's theory, everything is so tied in now financially, via the internet, that you know, you just, at this point you can't stand to see the rest of the world's economies crash and think, we can survive alone. that would be my fear. neil: desmond lacllan, former imf official, there are a lot of europeans snickering at the brits' quagmire right now but they're hardly in a position to brag and boast, are they? if you look and i mentioned the problems that italy is giving them and a budget anything but austere, that goes against what the germans wanted them to do and the french wanted them to do, the french and germans have their own difficulties. so is it fair to say, i'm using a technical term to say, i'm

using a technical term here, the whole thing is a mess? >> that is certainly fair to say. what is really as big of a threat as the united king many do crashing out of the euro is the situation in italy. that italy looks like they're on a complete collision course over their expansion budget with the european union and that can end in tears with italy eventually defaulting on its debt. we would already have a serious problem in that is the third largest country in the eurozone. so it would be difficult to see how the euro survives all of that. so the argument that they have been making in the united kingdom, they are tied to a corpse might very well about, turn out to be true, that the euro could eventually unravel and the united kingdom would be best to be out of that but i think it is in nobody's interests to see the united

kingdom economy languish because as, your other guest said, we're in such an interconnected world if the united kingdom tanks, that will have a big impact on the european economy. that will exacerbate a lot of problems they have got in europe. neil: winnie sun, sun group partners founder, winnie, i always think of international problems banks and their exposure to all regions of the world. you always discover in the thailand bot crisis in the late 90s, all of sudden all these banks were on the hook to that region. obviously this is a much bigger region, so should banks and bank investors be worried? >> i think so. i think there is a lot of news right now and like i'm talking to my own clients right now. there is a lot of concerns they have with our geopolitical front.

news coming out of banks, financial leadership out of the house sector will impact their portfolios and what will happen to us taxwise. so much uncertainty. that is the word i keep coming back to. i think investors need more certainty. they need to feel comfortable going to the stores this holiday shopping back into retailers so the market can continue to do well. neil: thank you, guys. i want to bring my buddy charles payne into this. for those wondering what is going on and neil going into a british accent, we're waiting to hear from theresa may, the prime minister. two of her key ministers quit including the guy who was negotiating her "brexit" deal. the pound has drop the 1 1/2% versus the dollar. it had been slip-sliding anyway and some of the biggest banks in the country had a meeting. i don't know where they have been corralled to talk about this with banking authorities in britain and for all i know the

european union. all i know, they're all holed up together. no doubt waiting to mare from the prime minister. charles payne on all of this. these are, you have always reminded me, these outside the box developments. you don't plan on but they're part of market lore. >> right. neil: how do you markets handle them? >> as we can see taking a literally second to second. we were down 200 points. moments ago we were down two or three points. we're pulling back again, watching this second to second. neil: is this a big thing to you, charles as an investor, looking at great earnings and all the stuff you been referring to? >> i focus on the u.s. economy but we have a s&p but majority of growth, not business, majority of growth comes from outside the country. so you have to pay attention. the political ramifications cannot be ignored. there is anti-establishment, anti-elitist movement around the world. the most recent example was in brazil. it is not just a western thing, not just japan india, everywhere

you go around the world, people said you know what? we have given them certain elites whether they call themselves republicans or democrats whatever they call themselves around the world to run our lifts and we lost faith in all them and they're unraveling. gary b. smith saying maybe we're tied together as world, some people don't want that. maybe it is not quite working out the way it was advertised it would work and people are getting fed up. the folks in the uk voted over two years ago to get out of this messy arrangement. they do not think unelected bureaucrat -- neil: how could it happen? >> powerful forces from day one to try to meddle with this to stop it. that is why they can't get the agreement. why nigel farage -- neil: we'll have another vote on it? >> that is the whole thing roadblocks, obstruct, derail, move around, whatever it takes

to stop this from coming into reality. maybe the point you get even a new vote on it, as you said earlier get a different decision. that is what the very powerful forces backed by trillions of dollars. they run all the major institutions in the world. from banks to media, to everything they control the planet. they are definitely afraid of what's happening right now. they have done everything they could to sort of stop this from happening. also, let the audience know, theresa may voted against "brexit." she was not for "brexit." neil: that's right. >> in the first place so her heart has never really been in this. neil: why a lot of her critics say she was dragging her feet on this. if she had her druthers this never should have been. >> right. neil: i'm wondering that popular movement that presaged itself with donald trump first was in

britain with this vote. i'm wonder whether this goes up in flames, whether it makes people question the whole populist movement worldwide, what do you think? >> it would make the populist movement for powerful. if they deny the british people this. it sally is saying to the eu, ecb, a few years ago we had a crisis. you were able to push around greece, make them accept austerity measures and ireland and portugal to a degree, we'll not do it. this is our budget. we'll resubmit it two weeks later, same budget, what do you think? neil: right. >> think about this, people need to know at home, how crazy it is in italy because imagine if there was a copresident in america, president trump and president bernie sanders? that is what they have got running italy right now, diametrically opposed on everything except one thing the opposition. they know there is something wrong with the folks in charge.

different whys how to make it better, polar opposites how to make it better, but they both agree what is the problem. neil: there are two different problems you cited there. i wanted to touch on that with desmond. what, one of things -- they have gone. i apologize. charles, one of the things they said on this, this could be bad for britain and this could be bad as well for the rest of europe. so a pox on both of europe financially-soiled houses. what do you make of this? >> unwinding these intricate relationships and worry comes with it obviously will have some impact. when president trump announced tariffs initially, the best white house can do will tell americans there would be a degrief pain because you're unwinding the status quo. the status quo is designed when you do unwind it is it is painful. neil: do you think he dud enough

of that? >> no, i don't think he did enough of that. neil: people will see it when they start shopping see. >> i don't think he would -- corporate america hasn't complained about it as nearly as much as wall street complained about it. in third quarter earnings people mentioned tariffs in third quarter and than the second quarter in their conference calls. neil: convenient excuse they can latch on. >> they didn't. that was irony of it. we will see. it was ironic they didn't in the third quarter as opposed to second quarter, even fewer. that was kind of interesting to me. neil: could you argue it builds up as time goes on? >> it should. that is the part where the pain comes in. the fear part of it though hasn't been matched. even yesterday jay powell i listened to entire q&a down in dallas. he said he has seen no evidence

of it so far having negative impact. neil: you're the only person on the planet that did listen to the whole thing, got to understand something about charles. he is scary smart. when they say we offer you the option of listening to him for 2 1/2 hours, charles stops everything to listen for 2 1/2 hours. did he signal he cast -- was concerned about all the bumps and would alter the pace of rate hikes? >> all people come on say they don't look at stock market. he acknowledged that they look at the stock market and the housing market. one of the questions, how do you know, what data do you look at to know you're doing the right thing? he almost said there is no such thing. there is no real data to know what they're doing now, how it is going to impact us 18 months to two years out. there is no really effective data out. think about this morning, retail sales numbers came in. they were dramatic revisions in

that. if they're relying on all of this data -- neil: retail was up .8 of a percent last month. so you could argue that might give him impetus -- >> two months prior we were revised down. neil: that's right. >> if you're the federal reserve, trying to gauge hey am i crushing people, am i going to crush people, this is why he said we go gradual. neil: do you think he is overdoing it though? >> absolutely. absolutely. you know, listen, he is a very confident man, he is a very successful man. his posture was someone, listen i'm in control. like don rumsfeld, i'm in control. not don rumsfeld, i'm in charge here now. neil: al haig. >> yeah, al haig. he had the al haig look. what i found fascinating he really believes the economy is not only going to grow but grow faster. and that the fed is not going to mess this up.

he believes in his heart of hearts the fed will not mess this up. i hope he will not be too arrogant. that is what hurt us before, fed arrogance. not to be two arrogance when there are signs. housing market, kb homes had a warning. housing stocks getting crushed again today. he acknowledges these things exist. but he also, and he acknowledges that he doesn't have a real way to understand how things are going to impact us or are impacting us, until a long time after their actions. they're going full steam ahead. that bothered me a little bit, the president had that criticism built in when he wondered why the federal reserve does this automatically, raise rates when we're in good economy, this pavlovian response, pair phrasing here is a bit much. we won't know until later on when we see the result. >> right. neil: the market, hiccups, we're all over the map, take a picture. we were down 45 now. we were up 200 and we were down

200, i'm just wondering if this is the type of pace and volatility we return to? what is the average investor to do? >> i think you have got to hold on. i think the average investor, particularly been through it after 2009 will hole on. neil: we'll watch closely. thanks, buddy. theresa may now explaining "brexit" whether it is an exit after this. >> it's a heavy responsibility. that is true at anytime but especially when the stakes are so high. a negotiation with the uk's withdrawal from the eu after 40 years and building from the ground up a new and enduring relationship for the good of our children and grandchildren is a matter of the highest consequence. it touches almost every area of our national life. a whole economy and virtually every job. the livelihoods of our fellow citizens, you are integrity, as united kingdom of four nations,

our safety and security, all of these are at stake. my approach throughout has been to put the national interest first, not a party's own interest and certainly not my own political interests. i do not judge harshly those of my colleagues who seek to do the same but who reach a difficult conclusion. they must do what they believe to be right, just as i do. i'm sorry that they have chosen to leave the government and i thank them for their service but i believe with every fiber of my being that the course i have set out is the right one for our country and all our people. from the very beginning i have known what i wanted to deliver for the british people, to honor their vote in the referendum. full control of our borders, by bringing an end to the free movement of people once and for all. full control of our money so we

decide ourselves how to spend it on priorities like our nhs. full control of our laws by ending the jurisdiction of the european court of justice in the united king do. getting us out of common agriculture policy and common fisheries policy for food. good. that is what this agreement will deliver. free movement ended, vast annual payments stopped, jurisdiction of the ecj over, out of the cap, out of the cfp. this is a "brexit" that delivers on the priorities of the british people. in achieving these objectives i'm also determined to protect the things that are important to us. protect hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, that put food on tables of working families right across the u.k. those jobs rely on cross-border trade and goods with parts flowing easily in and out of the uk, allowing for integrated

supply chains. this agreement protects that. protects the close security cooperation that helps keeps us safe. this agreement does that. protect the integrity of the united kingdom and peaceful settlement in northern ireland by leaving the eu as one united kingdom and having no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. this agreement does that as well. yes, difficult and sometimes uncomfortable decisions have had to be made. i understand fully that there are some who are unhappy with those compromises but this deal delivers what people voted for and it is in the national interests. and we can only secure it if we unite behind the agreement reached in cabinet yesterday. if we do not move forward with that agreement, nobody can know for sure the consequences that will follow. it would be to take a path of deep and grave uncertainty, when

the british people just want us to get on with it. they are looking to the conservative party to deliver. to deliver a "brexit" that works for the whole uk, a strong economy keeps jobs safe and wages rising, first class public services we can rely on. an nhs there for all of us, great schools for every child, and homes that families need. that is what the people we serve expect and that is what we owe it to them to deliver. goodness, me, you normally put your hands straight up. laura. reporter: thank you very much, prime minister. laura -- bbc news. it is very clear you want to stick to your plan. is it the case though others are seeking to take that decision out of your hands? and prime minister, is it not the case now you are in office

but you're not really in power? >> when we bring the deal back, what is going to happen now, there will be negotiations, particularly focusing on the future framework, filling details of that out at an eu council meeting. and that will then be brought back to the house of commons and to a vote in the house of commons. i'm going to do my job of getting the best deal for britain. i'm going to do my job of getting a deal that is in the national interests. when the vote comes before the house of commons mps will be doing their job. they will need to look at that, a deal, they will need to consider the vote of bringsish people to leave the european union and the need to deliver on that vote and held to account for their constituents for the decisions they take. tom? >> thank you, prime minister. tom from the sun. if there is a confidence vote held for the leadership of the

conservative party do you think it is in the national interests for you to fight it? an if you win by only one vote will you carry on as prime minister? >> leadership is about talking the right decisions, not the easy ones. as prime minister my job is to bring back a deal that delivers on the vote of the british people, that does that by ending free movement, all the things i raised in my statement, ending free movement, ensuring we're not sending vast sums to the eu any longer, ending the jurisdiction of the european court of justice but also protects jobs and protects people's livelihoods, protects our security, protects the union of the united kingdom. i believe this is a deal which does deliver that, which is in the national interests. am i going to see this through? yes. christian. yes? do you want the microphone? reporter: prime minister, simon from 5 news.

surely now even you have to admit this is not strong and stable? >> what i think people will see is that what i and the government have done is being sticking to the job of ensuring that we're delivering for the british people. that's what we're doing. we're delivering in the british, in the national interests. look, mps have been debating the best way to deliver "brexit" ever since the referendum took place in 2016. there has been much criticism throughout that time of the government's approach. people have been ready to point out what they don't like. but one simple fact remains. that is that nobody has produced any alternative proposal which both delivers on the referendum and also ensures that there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland and i understand some people feel uncomfortable about the details in the backstop particularly in the withdrawal agreement, and i share some of those concerns but there is another inescapable fact, there is no deal which can be agreed with the european union that does not involve a backstop to act as an insurance

policy against a return to the borders of the past in northern ireland. all the other approaches, norway, canada plus, et cetera, they would all require a backstop. and the alternative repudiating that backstop would not only mean reneging on a promise to the people of northern ireland but would also collapse the negotiation and hopes of securing a deal. what has the government been doing? we've been absolutely clear focusing on delivering what is in the best interests of the british people. faisal. reporter: sky news. prime minister, are you not in denial about the chances of getting this deal through parliament? for the critics in your own party sending letters very public i is it time for them to put up or shut up? >> what i have -- i think you may have heard me say in the house of commons earlier today i have just reiterated here, i'm going to do my job of bringing back the best deal for the united kingdom.

that will then be but before the house of commons and then the members of parliament in a meaningful job. that will be their job to consider interests of their constituents and their job will be to consider how we can deliver on the vote by the british people to leave the european union. and i think, i think most people watching this or listening to this will recognize that this is not an easy thing to do. this is a complex negotiation. but i think what most people want to know is that what we will deliver will be in their interests. it will protect jobs. it will protect security. it will insure a great future for this country. yes? reporter: rob hutton from bloomberg. isn't it time to say what you clearly think which is that the "brexit" campaign offered something that was not on the menu? it offered very, very easy trade

negotiations. it offered, there was going to be no problem at all with the irish border it, would be fantastically straightforward. the european union would give us everything we have wanted because of bmw, and things like that? isn't it time some of the things you were promised they were never there? >> i think most people in this country recognize that after 40 years of membership of the european union, delivering "brexit," how we deal with the eu and what our future relationship is not an easy negotiation. these are complex issues. i think what most members of the public want, those actually who voted for leave and many of those who voted for remain as he will, is for the government to get on with it. that is exactly what we're doing and for the government to deliver a deal that is in the national interests, that is going to protect their jobs and is going to insure we have a great future of this country.

that is exactly what we're doing. yes? >> julie mcfarland, abc news. madam prime minister, what would you say to all our friends and abroad who are looking at what is increasingly a government in chaos. >> the government of brussels will recognize the draft outline and political declaration, they have recognized fact by the fact that president juncker written to the eu council that the decisive progress is made on the negotiations and on that basis a council is called for the 25th of november. they see a government intent on working with them to insure we deliver a good deal for the british people. what i always said, a good deal for the uk is a good deal for the eu as well. robert? reporter: prime minister, you've said that your deal is in the national interest but your party is deeply divided on it.

perhaps more divided than any of us have ever seen. are you prepared to risk the breakup of your party to deliver the deal you believe in? >> as i have just said, robert, in answer to an earlier question, m purchases have been debating how best to deliver on the result of the the reverend took place. -- referendum took place. i believe what mps will do when it comes to the house of commons focus on the fact that people voted to leave and focus how we do that in a way that is good for the united kingdom. i'm committed as prime minister to bring the best deal back for the united kingdom. that's what i'm going to be doing and i expect when we come to, members of parliament across my party will look at that deal, will recognize the importance of delivering on the vote of the british people and recognize the importance of doing that in a

way that does protect peoples jobs, does protect our security and does protect our united kingdom. george? reporter: gordon -- from the telegraph. >> sorry. reporter: sorry -- >> you look like g. reporter: there are reports tonight that michael gove has been asked to become the new "brexit" secretary he will only take that job on condition he is allowed to go back to brussels and try for more concessions. will you allow whoever becomes the new "brexit" secretary to do that, to try to get more concessions? there have been no announcements set on to replace people that have resigned. are you struggling to find people to fill those roles? >> i have had a rather busy day. three hours in the house of commons. michael has been doing a excellent job particularly in his defense of the fishing

industry. you will see there are very important outlines of the political declaration that recognizes the united kingdom will be independent coastal state in the future. fish something a issue that matters to people. michael is doing an excellent job in terms of ensuring that we're delivering on that commitment that we have to come out of the common fisheries policy. i haven't appointed a new "brexit" secretary yet. i will make appointments to the government in due course. jason? reporter: thank you, jason gross of "the daily mail." follow up, there are several colleagues who say today that they have no confidence in your leadership. what will you do if there is vote of no confidence in the coming days? >> as i said earlier leadership is about making the right decisions, not taking the easy decisions. as prime minister my job is to get the best deal for britons and bring the deal back to the house of commons.

that exactly what i'm doing. members of the public want the government to get on delivering "brexit" for them. as i said earlier, am i going to see this through? yes. [inaudible]. reporter: prime minister, thank you very much. nick roberson from cnn you talked about leadership as being the position of taking hard decisions, the right decisions. that some of the choices have not been easy. would you share with the country now some of those decisions that you personally have found have been the hard, tough, not easy decisions to make? >> well, in relation to the deal that we're looking at, the, as i said before i recognize there are concerns about the backstop, that is an issue, i share many of those concerns. the decision to go forward on basis we have overall is not

easy one. it was a good, impassioned debate yesterday over these issues. overall looking at the national interest, we agreed as cabinet ad government the right one to receive, obviously those negotiations will lead up to the eu council on the 25th of november. mason. reporter: thank you, prime minister. ever since you taken the job, the country will leave the eu in march next year. over the last couple days you talked about the risk of no "brexit." do you think given forces lined up in opposition to your deal that that is becoming a definite threat? >> there were a number of members of parliament who stood up the house of parliament today, staying within the european union was the right

thing to do. i disagree. we gave the vote to the british people. parliament overwhelmingly gave the vote to the british people to decide whether or not to stay in the european union. the people voted to leave. i believe it is our duty as a government, i believe it is our duty as members of parliament to deliver on that vote of the british people. and we will be leaving on the 29th of march, 2019. on the edge there, sorry. reporter: thank you, prime minister. matthew thompson from lbt. i wonder to some extent this crisis of your own making, failure of expectation management and not bringing people within the dup and hard-liners in your party with you? obviously they were not going to like what was in this deal, should you have brought them on board more quickly? >> we've been working on the deal, various staging posts we made clear to people what the approach that we're taking in relation to these issues.

that happened at december in the joint report. obviously there was then further information that we put forward in spring. in july our approach was clearly set out for people. we've been discussing with colleagues and with people in the house of commons as we have been discussing with business and others, as we progressed through inputting this deal together. what is, has been the focus as i said earlier is making sure that the deal we deliver is deal that delivers on vote of the british people, that does so in the way of best interests of and we protect people's livelihoods and national security but also ensures we're able to move forward outside of the european union as a global britain, for example, to ensure we can negotiate trade deals around the rest of the world. i believe that is what is in the interests of this country and that is with we'll deliver. i will take a couple more questions. now, george. reporter: paul -- >> again.

[laughter]. reporter: lots of reporters. >> anybody who thinks i have george parker on my mind? reporter: a lot of reporters, prime minister. prime minister, if the house of commons voted by a majority for another referendum for a people's vote, would you see that as resignation matter. would you see that as you having to implement the will of parliament as prime minister? >> look i have taken a very clear view about the question of a second referendum. i made that view clear to members of parliament much i think actually across the house of commons most members of parliament recognize they gave a vote to the british people. the british people voted and up to us deliver on that vote and not have a second referendum. as far as i'm concerned there will not be a second referendum. they said we will leave the european union and we will leave the european union on march of

2019? reporter: [inaudible] >> look as we see across the house of commons there are voices for a second referendum but i believe when people look at the deal we bring back from the european council, the final package we bring back from the european council they will look at delivering the vote for the british people and deliver on the -- i think that is the questions they will ask about, not a second referendum. a just a couple more. reporter: hi. my question, given difficult likely to have getting this deal through parliament, do you regret calling a general election last year? >> no, i don't regret calling a general election last year. as i say, when it comes to the vote in parliament there will be a decision for mps to take. i will do my job. i will bring the best deal back for the british people and then mps will do their job and be

held to account by their constituents for it. so the last question. right here. reporter: thank you. jay wall list from the independent. prime minister you're a cricket fan. from the outside it looks like at the moment you're a long, long way off getting the number of runs that you need but your bats men are dropping like flies s there any number of wickets that will fall in your cab bet before you resign as captain? >> i could say, you might recall from previous comments i made about cricket that one of my cricket heroes was always jeffrey boycott. what do you know about jeffrey boycott? jeffrey boycott stuck to it. he got runs in the end. thank you. neil: all right. nothing like a little cricket analogy to get the point across that britain's prime minister theresa may is not giving up on the fight to formally break off from the rest of europe.

march 2019 is the time britain will stick to that but there have been enormous divisions in the country. remember this was voted on almost 2 1/2 years ago to leave the european union. it has been met by resistance from both sides. the two ministers resigned today over this kerfuffle, dominic robb, he was the cabinet minister in charge of negotiating the "brexit" package. he didn't like where the final package veered saying it supports an arrangement where the eu, referring to the european union, holds veto power over our ability to exit. esther mcveigh, the pension secretary echoed a similar theme of the deal constructed as it is now doesn't honor the result of the original reverend up, the one done in 2016 where the brits surprised the world and establishment saying, we don't want to be part of the establishment. we don't want to be part of this so-called european club. they might think it's a

wonderful club. we do not. separating from the club that proved very, very difficult. europeans have been saying, all right, you move away too soon, there will be penalties for that. there is a camp in britain says cut the ties now. let's see what happens. fears that will lead to market tumult and the rest, this dragging out process has been at least as volatile certainly for the british pound which is down 1.6% as we speak. it has been slip-sliding on concerns that theresa may's government is slip-sliding away from her. that european club is hardly enviable one to be in. it has a lot of rebellious members already. italy for one. spain for another. portugal. greece is staggering by for the time-being. countries loaded with debt and budgets that don't deal with that the italians are the latest to say, you know what? we don't want this. you don't like our latest budget, shut it. these concerns multiply and

multiply and leads to concern as well that maybe europe in general is a place to invest, britain is not a place to invest but the u.s. dollar is a place to invest because it is skirting to multimonth highs, certainly multiyear highs against the british pound and against the euro. more like multi-month highs there on the belief we're a safe place to park cash. you couldn't see it in our markets. fears after global contagion are real, if this unravels and leads to leadership changes and friendly government with the united states and maybe less friendly, although this is britain we're talking about, it could unravel investments in that neck of the woods. bankers are very big in that region. they have huge exposure both to britain and europe. they're one of the most hard-pressed of the sectors. i should say one of the them, not apply to all of them, jpmorgan is running up today. when i look at the dow 30 board, it an apple are bucking and other wieseling trend.

but not a big one. in jpmorgan's case, indication from warren buffett that in the latest period he upped is had investment in jpmorgan chase to around now, up to 4 billion-dollar stake. if the sage of omaha is saying that that particular bank looks good, it is sort of had a shine effect on other banking issues. that could be sort of like a one-day hit wonder. obviously a lot of these investments were prethis news that "brexit" might be falling apart. i hasten to add you don't want to get caught up in the moment. the headlines for the moment, theresa may that her cabinet is falling apart, her chief advisors are leaving, they're abandoning ship. she can't win for love or money, doesn't satisfy those who want a clean break and those who want a longer careful break. so it is rampant confusion in britain as they embrace for the possibility of a leadership change certainly within that party and maybe at 10 downing street. gerri willis is getting reaction

on the new york stock exchange. gerri. >> neil, what is turning around not just the reaction but the dow down 35 points. we've seen a 300-point move in today's major market index. all over the floor of the exchange here, you saw tvs turned to her comments. she is defending the "brexit" deal, saying i will see this "brexit" deal through, exclamation point. i have a duty to deliver, but to say the press she faced was skeptical was to understated. will you risk the breakup of your party, your government in chaos? how tough questioning for her. of course down here on the exchange, looking at great britain as an important ally, as not just that but also a fair amount of trade with that country, some of these folks down here saying we don't know what to expect here. this is new territory, new frowned.

you know how markets feel about that. they do not like it. i want to quote one trader here, neil, you will find interesting. i looked at me, whatever i try to do it doesn't seem to work in this market. we're in limbo. in limbo while we figure out "brexit," interest rates, trade deals. so much weighing on the market. to think we're only down 33, neil. maybe that is the good news. neil: all those uncertainties everything else we're throwing at this market. thank you, very, very much. go to mark walker, republican congressman of north carolina. elected by his peers as vice-chair of gop conference. >> thanks, neil, appreciate it. neil: do you look at these developments, congressman, i know you have a lot on your plate and looking to find common ground with democrats on a whole host of other issues. theresa may is not at the tip of your tongue, but the concern we are financially vulnerable if

things go kablooy there, what do you think? >> the first thing that comes to my mind here in the capitol not too far from the winston churchill bust, i'm reminded of one of his quotes, if you're going through hell, keep going. that is kind of what that situation is with "brexit." i do applaud her for trying to stick as close as she can to the original referendum. i think it will have their exit here in march of 2019. but when it comes to how that impacts the inner-workings of the house i think that is yet to be seen. a lot of that will be post-march as we go into next year. neil: this might be in the weeds, congressman, but the president, theresa may had a phone call. she called him on air force one as he was heading out to paris for the world war i commemorations. he apparently lit into her on "brexit." that she was dragging her feet. people decided issue in britain two years ago, what is going on? i'm paraphrasing.

he was expressing frustration with that. do you share the frustration at least the will of the people at the time is not being honored? >> i don't normally get into what the people of great britain should or shouldn't be doing. i am focused how much is affects us but i won't take a pass but if any country, civilization, if people have spoken part of the leaders responsibility is to follow through. it's a little delayed. i'm glad to see there is something on a date to move forward. neil: meantime, bill pascrell, democrat sits on house ways and means committee, will likely deal the one with trade issues, he wants to take another look at the accord the president signed with canadians and mexicans. the first clear sign that the democrats are really going to hold this president, maybe republicans in a larger degree here to account on trade deals we thought were effectively signed off on. are you worried? >> i'm worried but i'm more straws traded because these are

deals that actually help the american people why in the world would our democrat friend and colleagues throw some kind of a grenade into the trade agreement we've seen manufacturers limiteds go up increase jobs here. wages in mexico forced to triple driving up our wages. those are the kind of things. the fact that canada for the first time is opening up their dairy markets, our farmers, those are people we should advocate and protecting. why they're trying to roll this back is very confusing at this point. neil: with your leadership election and kevin mccarthy beating out jim jordan, we're told many in the freedom caucus, conservative caucus, i don't know the numbers now to be honest, 35, 40, largely conservative congressman and women, who might feel sort of strangers in their own party, are they? what do you say to them? >> i certainly hope not. let me applaud jim jordan. he was the first one to come up to shake kevin mccarthy's

hand. my conservative score ranking if you will is matched with jim jordan, mark meadows and others. there is plenty of room for all of us to get thing done. i'm a conservative. i log shoulders with those the largest conservative caucus. we work together to accomplish what we promised the people in my case in north carolina. that can continue. specifically is must continue as we're in the minority. neil: all right. congressman mark walker, thank you very much. congratulations again. you're the gop conference vice-chair. busy day ahead for him. dow down 88 points. financial issues are all over the map. they were all down for a while. some coming back up with the lead from jpmorgan chase. big investor warren buffett and berkshire hathaway. that confidence alone is enough to keep that sector alive. for now.

so lionel, what does being able to trade 24/5 mean to you? well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. yes, but also all...

night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light. ♪ you're not gonna say it are you? >> yes, difficult and sometimes uncomfortable decisions have had to be made. i understand fully that there are some who are unhappy with those compromises, but this deal delivers what people voted for, and it is in the national interest. neil: all right, here's the thing, people in britain voted for this almost two and a half years ago, and it might be in the national interests, but times have changed, and we're told sentiment numbers in britain have changed. and if this doesn't go well -- that is, britain's formal exit from the european union -- that's a very, very big if, by the way, then what happens in

the interim? she could be gone, the ruling party could be completely evaporated here. she's lost two key ministers, including one of the people brokering her deal and didn't like the final deal, so it's a mess. let's get the read from u.k. parliament member nigel huddleston. what's your read of events and the prime minister's future? >> well, this deal was always going to be incredibly difficult, because opinions are absolutely divided. we saw that in the referendum, and we're now seeing it in parliament now. but we do have a deal. a lot of people thought that we wouldn't, so we've got something on the table, and we've really got to ask now what's the alternative? and those arguing they don't like this deal haven't really articulated a credible alternative. so we're at a bit of a sticking point. neil: now, the sticking point apparently seems to be how quickly you can break away from europe. now, i understood that when it was first voted on, everyone was stunned. i didn't think we'd still be

here two and a half years later, but again, i'm not from britain. dominic rob, i guess, who quit his cabinet member in charge of brexit had put the fault, actually, on the europeans and this fear or perception out there that the british were kowtowing to those in europe who wanted to have great sway over this. quoting him here, i cannot support or be part of an e.u. that holds a veto over our ability to exit. was it that dramatic? i mean, that seems to be signaling problems whether britain ultimately stays or goes, that there's tension there, really palpable tension. >> there's definitely a lot of tension, but the real sticking point is this thing you probably heard a lot about, the backstop. what happens if, in northern ireland -- the very difficult political situation we've got with northern ireland having a border with ireland, and avoiding a hard order. and it's all ant the mechanism

by which we avoid having a hard border in northern ireland. and the prime minister's articulating a plan that gets us to the point of hoping that we don't need that hard border, but some people are saying that kind of hope is not good enough. we want it absolutely, 100% fully lined out now in fine detail, and unfortunately, that just can't happen because there's too many variables. people like dominic, i think, unfortunately were asking things that the e.u. simply couldn't deliver and never could. neil: so, new nigel, it's just t call, but if there were a mulligan on this and brits could vote over again, how do you think that vote would go? >> you know, i really don't think there would with a massively different result. i think there'd be a small victory on the leave side or the remain side. my good instinct is it would be leave again, probably slightly bigger, but it wouldn't be a huge decision because britain is divided down the middle on this issue. neil: that's very interesting. thank you for taking the time, i

do appreciate it. all right, keep in mind that europe is hardly in this whole european union club, has its own issues whether britain wants to be a part of it right now. italy kicking and screaming with a budget that it says is not going to change even though pretty much germany and france and others have said you've got to change it. they're saying they're not. spain is in no great shape, portugal, no great shape. you coulding make the same argument that greece is just sort of whistling past the graveyard and could revisit some of the problems it was dealing with 18 months ago, so what happens now? the argument has been the u.s. would benefit because, certainly, our dollar and arguably the world's best market and the economy might take advantage of this disarray. then you've got to think about banks and their exposure. let's go to market watchers, aaron gibbs and foreman economic adviser to president bush 41, todd bu kruk holtz. -- he can

holtz. how big a deal is this for us, the united states? >> well, it's fun to watch. neil: actually, i can think of more riveting things. >> yeah, theresa may for a long time there. donald trump was right when he gave theresa may a hard time about not having a better negotiating strategy. she's done nothing to create leverage for the u.k -- neil: yeah, he was angry that it was going so slow. >> she should have been on a road tour, she should have been in canada, in the u.s., in australia, in ethiopia, in ghana negotiating free trade agreements and, essentially, threaten the e.u. if you do not negotiate with us a fair deal, a strong deal for brexit, then we will be immediately signing deals with the rest of the world. but instead, you know, theresa may studied at oxford, she studied geography. she would have done better to study rugby, because in this

modern world -- neil: she did quote a cricket player. >> well, but, you know, presumably someone who followed the rules. she needs to learn how to bend the rules and create leverage otherwise she's not going to get anything out of brexit, and she'll soon be following up on some retirement plan of her own. neil: erin, let's say the worst case scenario is that she dose, that britain might go down the road, and it's history as part of a member of the european union, but she's gone. r, there's confusion throughout europe, this argument that we benefit, do you buy that? >> it's going to be a pretty small benefit. i don't see -- we don't have a huge amount of imports and exports between britain, and even when you just look at u.s. revenues to europe, we're talking less than 10%, and it's even less than 3% when it gets down to the u.k. neil: china talks to e.u. are going to be more meaningful.

>> yeah. there's a much larger percentage of trade, and particularly with corporate profits. when you look at profit growth, there's really no expected growth within the u.k. so, yeah, it could hurt it a little if they have some real decline in their economy, but it's pretty minimal. it's more about the profit growth that we're expecting and revenue growth that we're expecting for china, particularly for corporations in the stock market that are a bigger concern to us. neil: you know, all that's probably well and good and true, i don't doubt a word of it, but i just remember covering the crisis and everything else that out of the blue, wait, we're exposed to that. and banks with exposed to that. and there's always this contagion fear. very different here, and i grant you. do you worry about that? >> well, yeah, because it just feels destabilizing, right? i think that it's true that the reality is that it's not like giant flows of trade are going to change. it's just that sense, that kind of nagging sense -- which, of course, many people feel in the

united states -- which is somebody's kicking at the foundations of our system. and this feels like -- neil: what are they kicking at the foundation of populism? you could make an argument, right, that pre-trump this set the stage. this vote. >> absolutely. i think it's -- i happen to think that it's the same fundamental economic force which is kind of an atomization of big, established things courtesy of people's access to information through the internet. it just makes -- it makes everything transparent if, it makes everybody feel that they're empowered, it makes people able to find people that aren't necessarily living in their same neighborhood or their same country that are like them. it's a very different force that's active on our whole society, and this is a prime illustration of it. neil: so i'm making this, no one else, it's just an opinion. but, todd, one could realize into that then if that presage, the original vote in june of

2016, what would later be the phenomenon of donald trump and other elections we saw to greater or lesser degrees, is its unwinding happening now, and was it shown even in this country in the midterms? i'm taking that leap, dash it all you want. >> i agree with you. look, this brexit and donald trump's election was about people in both countries -- more or less a majority, at least electoral-based in the u.s -- saying we've had enough of unelected people deciding what we're going to do. the buritz have, for too many decades -- the buritz -- the brits have felt beholden to the e.u. regulating everything from who could sell insurance to the size and shape of their bananas. so they didn't feel as if they were being represented, and they wanted their own sovereignty back. and then when you added the immigration debate that angela merkel could decide that thousands and thousands of syrians and others would be

permitted into london and into the u.k. without any representation, that seemed ridiculous. and a similar thing obviously happened in the u.s. where many americans in democratic states like and michigan two years ago as well as republican states felt as if they did not have a voice anymore in washington, d.c., and this outsider was going to do it. so this is about taking sovereignty back in one's own hands, and that force, i think, is still in place. and, by the way, as we see theresa may perhaps toppling, looking unstable, un-- not mentally, but politically -- look who she's dealing with. mr. macron in france is unpopular -- >> 49% approval if rating. >> right. in italy, nobody knows where this character comes from, and then angela merkel herself is going to be gone. so it's not as if -- neil: yeah, they're hardly all rock stars, right? >> and they're not rocks either. they're all, you know,

shattering pebbles at the moment. neil: so, erin, as -- when you look at your investment landscape, how much of this comes into play, or is it about earnings that have been strong? they're petering down a little bit, and your expectations are going to be tested because now we're going to compare with pretty strong quarters going forward, but what do you think? >> so this is interesting in that next year the earnings growth expectations for europe are actually higher than the u.s. neil: is that right? >> yeah. right now we're expecting 9, 9.5% profit growth in europe and 8.3 in the u.s. neil: it's gone down to 8.3? >> yeah. for 2019 it's really gone down quite a bit -- neil: what brought it down so far? >> third quarter earnings were so good that just on comp basis -- neil: it's hard to repeat. >> yeah. we know just a phenomenal year is just making earnings growth even harder to beat. but taking that into account, there is just so much more political risk and instability this europe that we are still

not advising people to overweight europe even though we're looking at better profit growth and similar revenue growth because the u.s. is just on a fundamental basis just more stable. at least for 2019. and so that's -- neil: well, that could also be the smallest dwarf in the room. >> right. so it's interesting that once again expectations are looking to be better and there looks to be -- but when you look at gdp growth, that's half of what the u.s. is expecting. neil: so far. >> so far. so we're still expecting, we would refer an overweight in the u.s. versus europe. neil: any sector you like in this crazy environment? >> i think it's a good thing that the air's been let out of the tech bubble -- neil: yeah. >> that remains, that is the one thing we've talked about a couple of times -- neil: it's coming back a little bit today but not a lot. >> the whole economy's fundamentally being powered forward, and those earnings growth is being powered by

changes people are making in their business model that are being fueled by information technology. and so i, you know, every sector's the tech sector now. neil: yeah. you're right about that. guys, e want to thank you all very, very much. i've been keeping track of some of these fan stocks, to a lot of these guests' point here, if there is a concern or panic building for the financial community -- aka what happened during the crisis, i think in 1997 -- markets have a funny way of showing it. of course, warren buffett could have changed that with reports that he built up a stake this jpmorgan chase to the tune of $4 billion. it's lifting that shock by just sheer, you know, good shade, virtually that entire sector for now. it's a reminder that one of the best investors on the the planet is still confident that banks, financial institutions in general -- particularly those in the u.s. of a -- have a future. more after this. ♪

every investor should ask questions. is our money in the right place? what am i really being charged? and is it eating into my returns? is my advisor a fiduciary? is he always a fiduciary? a good place to start is with an independent registered investment advisor. as fiduciaries, they live by a simple rule: always act in the best interests of their clients. that's why charles schwab is proud to support more independent financial advisors and their clients than anyone else. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

neil: all right, time to get an updatn that warren buffett placing a $4 billion bet on jpmorgan chase and adding to it. that certainly helping the stock. a pervasive effect on a lot of other financial issues on a day when most of them would likely be taking a hit on the fact that

there could be exposure to that region of the year. it gets overwrought and overdone, but charlie gasparino on whether this is a sign that warren buffett9 is not really focused on that, not really focused on democrats who want to crack down on banks in this country taking power in the house. >> well, first off, i don't think we can -- neil: the democrats. >> yeah. and once you have the senate in republican hands, anything they do will be sort of counteracted. let's just say they try to -- they said they have indictable evidence on deutsche bank which is a bank that did business with donald trump and clearly is going to be in the crosshairs of maxine waters. so they could send a referral to the justice department, and the attorney general who works for trump could say, okay, i'm going to stick it in this drawer. her power is going to be to intimidate and harass, and that will mainly come for the president rather than the big banks. i think what buffett is

saying -- first off, he likes jamie dimon a lot, likes him as a leader, likes a lot of what he says as a sort of thought leader in the banking business, but he's also, i think, making a bet that interest rates are going higher. and if that may not be -- neil: warren buffett. >> yeah. may not be good for other stocks, but banks generally do better particularly in a higher interest rate environment, because they can charge people more. neil: that's right. >> and the lag between what they charge people and how they have to increase returns on savings and checking accounts is wide enough that you have this spread -- neil: so their cd rate increases are slow, but the ones on their loans -- >> absolutely. neil: -- give you this chasm. that's easy money. >> right. and that's, i think, what buffett is banking on at least in the short term. and if he think-- and he thinks jpmorgan, if there is a banking crisis, guess who benefits from that? if they let every bank go under, the only one that might have

survived because they had some stuff on their balance sheet was jpmorgan. no bailouts, you know, no aig bailout which was a back door bailout for all the other firms and no direct money. jpmorgan had the best chance of surviving, and i think that's what he's also betting. if there's one bank, this is my if bank. so higher interest rates though, so you know, i mean, listen, if you want to know why the markets are trading off -- although they're all over the place today -- trade is a big determinant, and interest rates. anything that pushes interest rates up generally is bad for stocks because you'll go for other investments. and there are two things that might push interest rates up, the fed unwinding its balance sheet and raising the fed funds rate, but also if the tax cuts don't work, you're going to get higher deficits and, in response, higher interest rates because prices of bonds go down and interest rates go up. you have to track people when your interest rates go up. that will affect everything.

those are the sort of things that people are weighing right now. when i talk to investors, that's what they're telling me. neil: mention ge and all the credit worries there. >> everybody mentions ge. you know, listen -- neil: talk about exposure, a lot of people exposed. >> buffett is one of the best guys when you ask him, like, when does he make his investments, when everybody else is out and he picks the bottom. he didn't to that with jpmorgan, but he's been known to do that. what's interesting is that he's not in ge right now. i mean, you would think at $8 a share -- neil: remember when he and jack welch were tight -- >> right. neil: bob wright, of course, the former vice president of nbc universal, he was weighing in yesterday. i want you to react to this. you and jack welch and and a team that was considered like a wharton dream team, what happened? >> somehow or other we lost our -- i say "our," because i

never can quite get past it. just lost our bearing in dealing with the balance sheet. and those insurance reliabilities should have been dealt with. neil: you know, and then he went after jeff immelt which was the more sexy quote. i don't mean to second guess you guys, but it was interesting -- >> what'd he say? neil: well, would have, should have, could have. now i'm wondering the that's the case. it doesn't do any good pointing fingers, but i do wonder about what happened to ge. >> well, i find it interesting that buffett's not buying at the low, just from my standpoint. because he's usually the guy when everybody else is scared -- neil: that's right. >> -- he's in. he must not like what's still on the balance sheet and what these guys have to do. you know, i was talking with bob before, before he went on, and i said, bob, why don't they -- i said, this is on the table -- break it up into three separately-traded companies.

sell off the extraneous stuff, health care, aviation and powering right? he said it's not that easy. they've got $30 billion in pension fund liabilities. they need some of that cash flow to pay that off. i mean, if you -- it's not like the old days, you can just walk away. neil: right. >> someone can go after them. they can be sued, they can be prosecuted. so this is harder than you think. neil: is that right? >> that's what bob said -- neil: i had no idea. >> and here's the interesting thing, i don't know why buffett isn't in there at eight. it's got to be -- the sum of its parts are worth more than eight. neil: remember when it got to 20, got below 20 -- >> right. 17. i remember everybody was like, it's got to be worth more than 17. the fact that buffett's not in there -- neil: that's where he is concentrating the his financial, big purchases. >> look what happened during the financial crisis when he knew -- and he actually knew that aig was going to back door bailout everybody, you know? when aig was bailed out, you

essentially had all the toxic debt on the balance sheets of the banks essentially bailed out. that's what happened. because they insured that debt. neil: that's right. >> he went in and bought goldman sachs. remember that. he knew that people were so scared, he was going to buy the premier investment bank that was guaranteed to survive. he is not saying that with ge. at least not yet. neil: all right, buddy. thank you very much, charlie gasparino. we'll be back across the pond, what's happening in britain right now and also the potential hit on holiday sales not only there, but, yeah, here. after this. it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from

other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

gimme one minute... and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80% - medicare will pay for. what's left, you have to pay for that. that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement for meeting their high standards of quality and service. to request your free decision guide call now

or go online at aarpmedicaresupplement.com. with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and when you travel, your plan will go with you - anywhere in the country. whew! call or go online and find out more. neil: pg&e is a big california utility, its stock is getting hammered over concern for the wildfire if liability. the company releasing a statement to fox business saying: the safety of our customers expect communities we serve is our highest priority. it is important to remember that the cause -- talking about the fires in california -- has yet

to be determined. we are aware of lawsuits regarding the camp fire, right now our primary focus is on the communities, supporting first responders and getting our crews positioned and ready to respond when we get access so that we can safely restore gas and electricity to our customers. now, the genesis for all of this, some of you might recall, there were some customers in the hills of california who were reporting sparks on pg&e equipment that prefaced their warnings to utility customers to be careful and to be cognizant of the conditions ahead of the fires. some have taken that to be a leap that their equipment went bad or there were problems or that, in fact, it might have been contributed to the fires -- it might have contributed to the fires. the company responding on what has been a serious downdraft in its stock as a result. we'll be on top of it. amazon is promising 50,000 new jobs, signs that foxconn

won't deliver as many jobs as promised originally in wisconsin, so be careful if it sounds too good to be true. as my buddy jeff flock reports, sometimes it is. jeff? >> reporter: cautionary tale to any politicians that want to take credit for this amazon thing. you know, when you break it down, amazon didn't get much of a deal at all compared to what foxconn got. put up the numbers, neil. take a look and see what the incentives were, and these are tax breaks and infrastructure development. new york state spent about a billion and a half to get amazon to come there. virginia, less than a million dollars. wisconsin spent $4.5 billion worth of taxpayer money to get the focus at foxconn to build a factory there. if you break that down by the number of jobs, take a look. $22,000 a job in virginia, $48,000 a job in new york and $344,000 a job if, in fact, they deliver -- foxconn does -- on

all the jobs that it's promised. after the big hoopla, you know, we had president trump, we had governor walker, the speaker of the house ryan all with shovels celebrating the whole thing. well, it now looks like there will be fewer jobs than we thought. there will be robots in that plant and fewer manufacturing jobs. and because there are fewer manufacturing jobs, most of the jobs will be high skilled workers which now "the wall street journal" reports that because there are not enough high skilled workers there, they're going to actually have to bring workers in from china. scott walker, the governor, ran on a platform of attracting jobs to wisconsin this past november, and it wound up, well, it wound up he's not the governor anymore. at least he won't be when the next guy who beat him takes office. so beware out there. could be a good thing. job creation always great -- neil: maybe not, yeah, maybe not this. you know what's interesting,

jeff, governor cuomo is obviously chafing at that visit schism, what did new york give up to -- at that criticism, what did give up to entice them, he said not a penny. then i'm looking at the tax breaks, so how could he say that? >> reporter: well, you know, compared to what foxconn out of wisconsin, maybe new york got a deal. neil: yeah. you've got to make up for that money you're handing out -- >> reporter: not getting, exactly. neil: great reporting as usual, my friend. jeff flock. apple is trying to turn things around today. that is helping the dow doesn'tt jpmorgan chase is doing so well as well. let's get the or story the, jeremy, what do you think? >> well, neil, when all these companies are able to buy back their own stocks, have billions sitting there, whenever there's a dip, they're able to buy enough shares to really affect that. i think that's one thing. we also saw morgan stanley say

maybe now's the time to buy apple this morning. the unit sales don't matter. yes, we're seeing suppliers have some orders cut, but that doesn't mean that apple won't make billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars this holiday season. people will want to buy in that's the case. neil you know this stuff very well, i think we hold a different litmus test to a company like apple, like amazon. maybe it is reflected in their price. there are all sorts of ways of looking at the price of a technology stock, price to earningsing, price to sales, price to momentum and all that nonnen sense. but by any definition, apple is firing on all cylinders, so there's disappointment when it doesn't fire on as many cylinders as thought. if you're selling only 35 or 37 million units or, let's say, of an iphone and the market had expected, i don't know, i don't remember the details in the last report, 38 million, 39 million, so it has a higher bar to climb. it stopped climbing that, and i'm wondering whether that is a

continuing sign investors are saying we're done with you. >> well, i mean, investors -- are they worried about unit sales, or are they worried about money, right? yeah, apple is going to stop telling people how many iphones it's selling, but it's charging consumers $1,000, $1,100 -- neil: and making more than ever before. go ahead, i interrupted. >> exactly. yeah, exactly. they've still make -- they're still making more money because they're charging more for their phones even if they're selling fewer. it depends on what you're looking at. and really that goes into what you're talking about, looking at future earnings. can they continue that pattern or eventually are they going to have to cap how much they're charging on iphones, and the iphone growth will stop. and i think that's what's worrying people. yeah, it'll be fine the next quarter, maybe the quarter after, what about two years down the road, are they going to be able to charge $1500, $1600? if they're not, that's going to have to come to an end.

neil: this page 1 story in "the new york times" about facebook, how it has -- generally, you get a sense of a demoralized work force in light of their chiefs ignoring some of these privacy and other threats and then getting arrogant about them. i'm way oversimplifying, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture. what do you think? >> it really doesn't. and there's so much opportunity in the bay area and in silicon valley still that that is actually one of the biggest problems for facebook, is making sure they can hold on to good employees and recruit good employees. and that's going to be a huge problem when you're going up against google and apple and all the other companies out here that are looking for the tech talent in silicon valley, being able to attract and retain talent is going to be huge for facebook. and it's going to be very hard for them with all the negative news stories out there about them. neil: i know you don't try to pinpoint stock, you just look at the big, aggregate picture for these guys, but, you know,

facebook is one issue, but apple had hit about bear market territory. it actually did versus intraday trading highs in early october. and i'm wondering this small comeback today, whether that's a sign that it is coming back, or are you hedging your bets and saying, well, maybe not? >> maybe not. like i said, apple could be in there buying up tons of its own stock. it could be influencing this at this point. i mean, we've go to look at the longer term, and we won't know until we see the numbers from the holiday sales. iphone's a huge bellwether, and if they're nervous about holiday sales, everybody should be nervous about holiday sales. neil: all right. thank you, my friend. it's always good catching up with you. be well. >> thanks, neil. neil: let's take a look at what's happening on the corner of wall and broad. my buddy gary kaltbaum passed along an interesting story that the u.s. and china have intensified efforts to strike a truce at the g20 that would curb

their trade war. doesn't say resolve, doesn't say settle it, but curb it. if that were true, if it looks like progress could be made on the trade front -- and we do a lot of business at stake and a lot at stake with china, and that gets all the focus and oxygen in the room when it's about china -- gary could be right. that is fixating investors. again, for this particular minute. more after this. ♪ ♪

there's brushing...and there's oral-b power brushing. oral-b just cleans better. even my hygienist said going electric could lead to way cleaner teeth. and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the first electric toothbrush brand

accepted by the ada. oral-b. brush like a pro. >> the british people voted, and is up to us to deliver on that vote and not have a second referendum. as far as i'm concerned, there will not be a second referendum. we asked people their view, they said we should leave the european union, and we will leave on the 29th of march, 2019. neil: all right. british prime minister theresa may making it very clear that people have already expressed

how they feel about breaking away from the european union. the detail on that, though, is they did so two and a half years ago, and now the sentiment seems to be building that if brits had their druthers, they might go the other way. ashley webster's at the nyse. ashley, very little reaction to any of this, certainly, where you are but what do you think of that? if there were a redo, that it would go against her? >> reporter: well, you know what? sky news just put out their latest poll on that issue asking people would you vote to stay in the e.u. if you got a second chance? 55% said, yes, i think after everything we've seen so far, i think i'd rather stay in the e.u. but you know what, neil? there's something about polls and brexit and believing them. i don't think you can really take any of that seriously, because people often say one thing and vote another way. but i will say that, you know, theresa may is now in a high stakes chicken game with the members of parliament, because what this boils down to is she's going to get this deal signed

off with the e.u. in about nine days' time, then she has to put it through parliament. and parliament will vote. and as it stands, she's going to have a really, really hard time getting this approved. the question is, to the mp ifs -- the members of articlement -- brink and give her the deal, or to they say, no, this is not good enough, this is not what we wanted when we talked about brexit. if they vote it down, then i think theresa may is out the door. the question then becomes who takes over the conservative party. that is a big issue. and the issue of a second referendum continues to gain momentum. this is pressure for that -- there is pressure for that to happen, neil, because what they voted on two years ago, more than two years ago, in june of 2016, bears no re resemblance to what is being put in front of them here in 2018. neil: why is it taking so long, ashley? i know a lot of in the has to be run by the europeans in order, yeah, you can do this, you can

do this, here's the timetable, and possibly one of the secretaries, this dominic raab, didn't like that, that the european union had veto power over so much of this, but for two and a half years. >> reporter: it's been -- well, they were so intermeshed, it's very hard to undo all of that, whether it's trade, agriculture, fishing rights, free travel, visas, business arrangements. there's so much involved in decouple, if you like -- deconninging, if you like, that you can't do it. let's -- some people would say let's chop it off, make our own laws, our own borders, that's what the nigel farages of the world wanted, but it's not even close to that because there's so much intertwined between the u.k. and the e.u. over so many twreers that getting that up wound is very, very difficult, complicated and, quite frankly, expensive. the u.k. is going to pay the e.u.39 billion pounds as part of the divorce which is, what, $50

billion u.s. or dollars. that's a lot of money. neil: you seem to be up on this british thing. [laughter] i told my producers that i knew enough about it, and i could use my british accent -- >> reporter: oh, don't. please don't. neil: they unanimously said, no, let's go to ashley, who knows what he's talking about, and hurt my feelings. [laughter] >> reporter: i'm very sorry about that. you know i'm from nashville originally. neil: i do know. just to be there at your career stage -- [laughter] thank you, friend, you're the best. >> reporter: my pleasure. neil: that mess across the pond right now. we are also going to talk about this mess on trade with china that might not be such a mess anymore. the financial times reporting that at the very least a truce could be in the works ahead of the g20 meeting. it was enough to propel a good deal of buying. we've been sort of sucked into this sort of optimism before, and then the whole energy's been sucked out. but for now, it's on, the truce.

after this.

♪ ♪ if. neil: all right, if i can't give you a china trade deal, will a trade truce do? reports in the financial times, now spreading elsewhere -- first brought to my buddy gary

kaltbaum -- that maybe, maybe they can have the appearance of progress by that gathering not even a week away. let's talk to blake burman with the latest from the white house. >> reporter: hi there, neil. there is definitely some movement between the united states and china as it relates to trade. here's what we can tell you. on tuesday there was a teleconference between both sides, the treasury department running point on this, one source telling me it's treasury that is quarterbacking this. you had this teleconference on tuesday. we are also being told that at some point this week as well the chinese gave their list of reforms to the united states as to what china would be willing to do and how they would be willing to move as it relates to trade. the big question surrounding all of this though is what kind of movement, what kind of reforms. would it be sort of minor stuff, minor tweaks, major reforms, stuff in the middle? that, neil, we don't know. that is the big, outstanding question at this point.

keep in mind, though, the united states wants major structural reforms when it comes to china. talking about getting rid of ip theft, getting rid of, as well, the force technology of transfer. so those are some of the outstanding issue. but a chinese government official today said that now is the time that both sides could potentially get something done. here was a statement from a top chinese government official. quote: the china/u.s. bilateral relationship is at a crucial stage, and it requires correct choices and concrete efforts by the two sides to insure the sound and steady development of china/u.s. ties in the right direction. so we've got this meeting between president trump and xi jinping of china, the end of the month in argentina at the g20, neil. the u.s. was waiting on this list. they had been saying, officials we had been speaking to, that as much of the back and forth talk there was, we still didn't have a list from the chinese. now we are told that list has been given, but we don't exactly

know what was on that list, and that is the crucial piece of information here, of course, neil. neil: you know the flipside of that, buddy, is that now expectations rise finish. >> reporter: right. neil: -- for the g20 summit. now there's the hope, thement expectation that, hey, something's going to happen. >> reporter: exactly right. a few weeks ago you had larry kudlow, the president's top economic adviser, saying, well, they're going to meet, and maybe they'll talk about trade. if anything, it'll be a very small sort of portion. neil: right. >> >> reporter: now what we're expecting is in a couple of weeks trade, if it's not a big piece of the conversation, we want to see what comes out of it, because we know this is something that they're going to be talking about. neil: all right. thank you, my friend, very much. blake burman in the white house. he's way ahead of this stuff before others are pouncing on it. in the meantime, i don't know if you know, but a record amount of money came into washington via taxes this year. never before have we ever had a year like it, ever in history.

unfortunately, we just spent more than we ever have in history. it's that old money in and money out thing. no matter how much you make, right? the idea is to keep more, spend less. that's apparently news to washington.

. . .

neil: the president meating with republican not leaders at this hour. the deficit will translate into a trillion dollar plus deficit. tear jefferies always good to have you. we're having no trouble getting the money into the country and washington. we just take out a lot more that leaving washington. does any party have any idea how they will change that math? >> no. neil, i think they're not at all serious about it. this past month, october, first month of fiscal 2019, the government brought in 253 billion, turned around and spent 353 billion. president trump's own white house is predicting this year we'll have a trillion dollar plus deficit. fist can 2020, next year, trillion dollar plus deficit. 2021, we'll have trillion dollar

budget deficit. president trump is saying in his presidential term he was elected to in 2016, they will anticipate he will finish it out running trillion dollar deficits three years in a row. that is their prediction. neil: so what happens then? you know it was nowhere on a is are of issues in the midterms. it didn't even make the top five issues in the 2016 election that brought us donald trump to the white house. so what, what's going to change? >> you know. i don't know. it is really quite remarkable. of course the economy is doing great this year. we may well have the first year since 2005 when real gdp grew by at least 3%. unemployment is at, unemployment rate is at historic lows. people are happy about the economy, but still the government is heading on this trajectory of ever increasing debt. people know that eventually the growth cycle is going to end.

eventually there will be recession. the interest rates are already going up. and in people, all over the government, all the time say this debt is unsustainable. no one is coming forward with a real plan to restructure the government so that it can be solvent and we don't face a massive fiscal crisis down the road which is what we're headed to in the current trajectory. neil: do you think republicans are loathe to play with the tax cuts, just as democrats are loathe, whatever people's view with any spending priorities on entitlement programs and the like so there is like a standoff there? >> yeah. you know what i think you're going to see, in the tax cut they passed last december, tax cut, tax rate cuts for individual that are temporary, eventually go away. the corporate tax cuts were permanent and excellent. that's good. but you also had reductions for state and local taxes that are permanent. what you will see republicans

saying in the next two years, you better reelect trump and republican house so we can come back to the make the tax cuts permanent. otherwise we get a massive tax cut in the next administration. that will not help. neil: it is confusing. you're right. stranger things have happened. we'll watch it closely. terry, thank you very much. charles payne right now on fallout from all of this. dow up 160. thanks, bud. charles: neil, long time no see. good afternoon, i'm charles payne. this is "making money." america's economy is rocking. i know the stock market is volatile but the economy continues to surge with mitigated inflation. it is called a goldilocks scenario. after the drove "brexit" deal was approved, the negotiator resigned. the . went lower, the market went lower. in california fire deaths are unfortunately conti