captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: >> the sun has risen on an independent united kingdom. >> woodruff: a vote that's rocked the world. we're in london to hear what drove britain to leave the european union. >> the desire to leave was expressed strongest in the working class neighborhoods we visited, where residents felt beaten down by globalization. >> woodruff: financial markets plunge in reaction. what brexit means for the global economy. and it's friday. mark shields and david brooks analyze what britain's split may say about the mood of american voters. all that, on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> fathom travel-- carnival corporation's small ship line. offering seven-day cruises to three cities in cuba. exploring the culture, cuisine and historic sites through its people. more at fathom.org. >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited that's written in

your d.n.a. 23andme.com is a genetic service that provides personalized reports about traits, health and ancestry. learn more at www.23andme.com. >> xq institute. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your financial future. >> genentech. >> md anderson cancer center. making cancer history. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions:

and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the british people have spoken, and in voting to leave the european union, have sent shockwaves around the world. special correpsondent malcolm brabant begins our coverage, in london. >> the u.k. has voted to leave the european union. >> reporter: the official word came just after seven in the morning, u.k. time. >> leave, leave, leave! >> reporter: rapturous cheers went up at "leave" parties. the final tally: 52%-- more than

17 million people-- opted to leave the 28-member european union. >> we've actually shown that opposition to the e.u. isn't a small fringe minority party. >> reporter: for the 48% who voted to stay, the result was devastating. >> i think it's going to lead to great political, economic, business uncertainty. >> reporter: the political fallout was instant. prime minister david cameron, who led the campaign to "remain," announced he'll step down by october. >> i will do everything i can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but i do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination. >> reporter: cameron promised the referendum in 2013, in part to appease e.u. skeptics in his own conservative party. the u.k. independence party, deeply anti-e.u., was elated in victory.

its leader, nigel farage, used an anti-immigration campaign to rally support. >> the e.u. is failing, the e.u. is dying. i hope we've knocked the first brick out of the wall. it's a victory for ordinary people, decent people. it's a victory against the big merchant banks, against the big businesses and against big politics. >> reporter: from brussels there was a clear message that britain should leave as soon as possible and should not be given any special treatment in order to discourage other nations following suit. >> personally, i'm very sad about this decision, but of course we have to respect it. we will stand strong and uphold the european union's core values of promoting peace and the well- being of its people's. the union of 27 member states will continue. >> reporter: from german chancellor angela merkel there were questions about what comes next.

>> ( translated ): we don't know about the consequences of this step that will appear within the next days, weeks, months and years. that will depend upon how we the other 27 members are able and willing to react. there is no quick key solution that we can take from this referendum decision. that would only divide europe even more. >> reporter: so, how does britain separate itself? britain is required to invoke the e.u.'s "article 50, which gives london two years to negotiate withdrawal." that includes the fate of existing trade deals, and travel and work within the e.u. for british citizens. a majority of the 27 other member states must approve the deal. all the uncertainty sent global markets from tokyo to new york into freefall. and the british pound plummeted to its lowest point in over 30 years. the economic fallout could be a sign of things to come, and

those people who voted to stay in the e.u. are pointing to it as proof they were right. but it's done little to change the convictions of voters in the majority. most of london voted to remain, but take a journey to the east end, and you meet poor, white working class londoners who voted to leave. they feel overwhelmed by immigration, blaming the newcomers for driving down wages and taking their jobs. brian hughes is one of those people. >> i think it's due to all the immigrants coming in the country, because they're getting cheaper labor in, basically. i've been a driver for 27 years and i decided i can't do the job anymore. even though there's nothing wrong with me, that's the way it goes. >> reporter: novelist dreda say mitchell believes metropolitan london has lost touch. >> i think we've been living in a bubble, where we've been thinking that our experiences in london are the same experiences that most people outside of london have been having, and it's not been true. >> reporter: to the north in edinburgh, scotland, where the remain vote won, talk on the

streets was of a second chance at independence from britain. >> this will trigger a vote for independence in scotland and i think it's one that i would, this time, think very differently about. >> reporter: scottish first minister nicola sturgeon said that second vote was "highly likely." >> scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the e.u. against her will. i regard that as democratically unacceptable. >> reporter: leaders in northern ireland made a similar call, saying there should be a vote to unite with the irish republic. >> for us to be dragged out of european union against our will is absolutely unacceptable. >> reporter: all signs of the seismic change that has happened, and may yet come, all driven by yesterday's vote. judy? >> woodruff: malcolm, i know you talked to a lot of people today out on the streets. what else did you hear from them? >> i think london is completely

devastated today because it is a city that has in the main voted to remain in the e.u. and i think the professional classes are stunned by what has happened. they went to bed believing they were going to be i union and woke up to find out that they were in a small little island off the west coast of the european union, and i thinkxd that's really stunnedñi them. boris johnson today when he came out of his house was booed roundly by people gathered outside. there has been a demonstration outside of cyclists cursing boris as they passed. i was in east london and talked to people who were happy about this, but these were people in an area that has been overwhelmed by immigrants. i talked to a taxi driver who said he voted for nostalgia and wanted it to go back to the way it was before which to many people would be not a very forward way of thinking. >> woodruff: malcolm, quickly,

what have you learned about how people voted on each side by age, by income. >> well, the most staggeringñi fact of all is the age difference between those who voted to remain and those who the young people, more than anybody else, they wanted to stay in because it was their future that they were voting for, but it was older people who decided that they thought it was best for britain to go out and, also, the same is true of the wealth and also education gap. more wealthy, richer people, better-educated people, they voted to stay within the european union. those who are lower down the socioeconomic classes voted to get out, and the key vote in all of this isñr immigration, and te people who wanted to stay in thought immigration was a very good thing, but those who wanted to stay out thought immigration was something that really had to change. these are the main democraticñi points of this referendum.

>> woodruff: i know we're only beginning to see theçó repercussionings and you will continue to report for us. thank you. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: we take a closer look now at what drove those voters, with sir michael leigh, a former senior official with the european union's executive arm, the european commission. he's now a consultant to the german marshall fund; and tim montgomerie is a conservative columnist for "the times of london." and we welcome both of you to the program. tim montgomerie, to you first, what was your reaction?ñi >> a surprise, first of all. i think few people expected brexit would actually prevail, and it was a close result, just under 4%, but açó decisive resu. what has been impressive in the course of the day was the number of moto m.p.sñi who campaigned o stay in the union and said the

people have spoken and we'llçó respect the result. >> woodruff: michael. deep sadness. i worked for three decades in the european institutions and during thatñi period, i believe the european union was a major peace project for europe. britain had a decisive influence on the way the e.u. developed. i sawçó britain influencing the single market, enlarge minister. to the e.u. i felt was a set of institutions that worked in the interest of the u.k. and europe and i was deeply saddened by this result. >> woodruff: tim montgomerie, what do you believe was driving the vote result here? >> içób. think what sir michaes about the european projects' past contribution is correct. as the european nations traded with each other, they found themselves together, and the war that is characterized -- that has characterized the continent in the past was put to an end.

but that european project died. it became much more ambitious. it decided to abolish national currencies and wanted to abolish national borders. and with the eurozone crisis and the huge unemployment and austerity it created, the sense that the passport-free zone, shangen zone was ideal for terrorist actively. i think the british people decided the european union was no longer working, as 28 member states it was a dysfunctional organization that couldn't take decisions and the major cause for the brexit vote was a freedom of movement regime which meant that britain did not know from one year to the next how many immigrants would be entering the economy and meant an inability to plan for public services like schools and hospitals. >> woodruff: sir michael, is that how you see what went into people's thinking? >> the issues mentioned are quite pertinent and he's right that the e.u. faces many real

challenges. i only wish that the campaign, particularly on the leave side, instead, it focused single-mindedly on people's fears of immigration, even in areas with virtually no immigrants, and it concentrated on backward-looking arguments related to sovereignty which have little real meaning in thi( globalized world. so i feel the decision was not taken after a serious debate of the pros and cons but rather than emotional argument that looked backwardsñr rather than forwards. it looked backwards to an imagined past, a golden age that will notñi come again. >> woodruff: you're describing a misleading campaign? >> i would say it's seriouslyçó misleading. one of th leave campaign nigel farage acknowledged today that the u.k. wa costing the european union

380 million pounds and this money could be redeployed and spent for the national health service was a mistake. it was also argued turkey was about to join the european union and we would be flooded with turkish immigrants. everyone knows turkey will join in a decade if ever. and other such arguments that played more on fears thq# the legitimate issues that tim raised where there should have been a proper debate on the relative merits. >> woodruff: tim montgomerie, was it a misleading campaign, then, after all? >> i think some of the criticisms sir michael make of the leave campaign are fair. i think it's also the case, however, the remain campaign did not ever really try to sell a positive view of the european union. it was also based on scares. the prime minister said leaving the european union would put a bomb under the british economy, even hints it might lead to a world war. and the british people felt that

was insulting to their country. the british people are a proud people. i think it was also the case that when president obama came to london and said to the british people that if they didn't stay in the european union, they would go to the back of the queue, the back of the line in terms of trade negotiations with america. if you are rude and insulting to a people, which i think david cameron and president obama could both be accused of being guilty of, people fight back. i don't think the american people would accept what the british people have to accept as members of the european union. a right, for example, if it was in the american situation for mexicans and canadians to be able to work and live in america freely without restriction or for a supreme court in ottawa or mexico to rule over the u.s. supreme court, and i think the british people weren't willing to put up with that anymore

either. >> woodruff: i want to get your response and ask both of you if you see this result as permanent, as a result that will stand. >> there is pretty strong language concerning president obama that we've just heard, sadly typified the leave campaign and is deeply to be regretted. president obama came to britain as a friend of the united kingdom and friends do give advice to other friends. this is something they do if they think their friends are about to take a misstep whether in public or private life, they say so. that's what friendship is all about. but to come to your second question, i do think this decision is irreversible. there has been a campaign. there has been a referendum based on universal suffrage. i think there's no turning back. >> woodruff: tim montgomerie, is there a turning back? >> i think that's right. i hope that's right. the british people against the weight of advice of all the party leaders in the british politicalñi system, against imf

and international institutions, the president to have the united states and other world leaders, they ignored all that because they really did feel the european union was an insufferable organization to continue to belong to. the e.u. has habits of ignoring the referendum decision of member states but i don't think britain will allow their vote to be ignored. >> woodruff: tim montgomerie, sir michael leigh, we thank you both. >> woodruff: now, a look at the potential economic ramifications of brexit. many financial markets took an outright beating during a global sell-off today. the euro stoxx index, a broad measure of stocks in the eurozone, fell by almost 8%. london's ftse exchange lost 3%. and the japanese nikkei dropped by nearly 8%. the american markets took big hits too-- the dow jones

suffered its largest loss of the year and gave up nearly all of its gains for 2016. it was down 611 points or nearly 3.4%. the nasdaq dropped 202 points or 4%, and the s&p fell 76 points or 3.6%. hari sreenivasan has this part of the story from our new york studios. >> sreenivasan: some analysts suggest that leaving the e.u. could plunge the u.k. back into recession, and the consequences could potentially spread into the wider global economy. we look at the concerns here and abroad with two who watch this closely. diane swonk, who heads her own firm, d.s. economics; and david wessel, director of the hutchins center on fiscal and monetary policy at the brookings institution, and contributing correspondent for the "wall street journal." diane, i want to start with you. the markets in the u.s. were down 611 points, the markets in europe and asia, some of them suffered even greater percentage

losses. what's the core worry for the world here? why these ripple effects? >> well, the real worry is not only will the u.k. perhaps slip into recession, it's about 2.5% of the global economy, but that there could be domino effects throughout the european union as other countries come to the same verdict and want to opt out of the european union. remember, this is an area where many companies got a lot of efficiencies by the fact there was trade and people could so easily move between countries. now that the barriers will be much higher, that will cost companies a lot more money and also many companies will have to move their location out of london to perhaps ireland, dublin or frankfurt and i think the bottom line is what does it mean in terms of dollars and exports and how will companies operate on a global basis. >> sreenivasan: how does this impact companies in the u.s.

>> i think generally it means american companies will sell less stuff abroad. the u.k. is a very small part of american exports but europe as a whole is about a quarter of all u.s. exports. that's a lot. the less well our economy does, the less stuff they will buy from us, meaning fewer sales, fewer profits and jobs here. the value to have the dollar has gone up a lot and as people freak out about what's going on in europe, the dollar foreign exchange will be higher, meaning it will be great for people vacationing in europe but makes it even worse for american exporters, it acts like a break on the u.s. economy. >> sreenivasan: outside of today, diane, what are the impacts on the u.s. companies? >> well, i think on that, as damning effect of the u.s. economy. not enough for us to take down our forecast. it is cheaper to go to europe, also easier to refinance your mortgage at a lower rate and the

fed is on the sidelines to support the economy and to cushion the blow of what david pointed out, stronger dollar, hard on manufacturers, insult to injury in an economy that's already been suffering a lot. the u.s. economy should be able to weather the storm coming from europe, the problem is uncertainty. i think thants what you're seeing royal markets is we don't know how far the domino effect could be beyond the initial u.k. vote. >> sreenivasan: there is the adamage buy on the rumor, sell on the news. having the actual act happen today, doesn't that add some certainty or as diane was saying we don't know what the next shoe is and when it's going to drop. >> well, i think the markets were a little surprised by the news. that's why there was such a big reaction. there isn't much certainty other than the u.k. pulling out of the european union. but i think there is a broader thing going on here. this is a bunch of people in a

democracy voting to repudiate trade, globalization, immigration, all those things that a lot of people think have been important in the growth of the world economy and i think the concern is this is a symptom of a broader malaise. it's true on the continent and here in the united states. people are thinking is the whole approach to world trairksd globalization, grappling with global problems through these institutions, is that now being called into question? >> sreenivasan: diane, how much is a referendum on free trade policies the world has been pushing for the last few decades? >> i think david is exactly right about that. this is a backlash to globalization and to really the post-world war ii era. they have been in for 43 years. remember in the european union, the u.k. had. i think this really is a global situation, a global backlash to that, and what kern concerns mei think financial markets as well,

it's a backlash to institutions and warnings as well. there is a break in terms it's global in nature. in terms of socioeconomic, how the vote went down, the younger people wanted to stay in, higher and educated people wanted to stay in. seeing immigration as a positive rather than negative. similar things in the united states. the backlash to free trade, immigration, the desire toñm walls instead of open borders. that is a breakdown of what we knew as a post-world war ii prosperity and i think that should rattle markets. it could be a paradigm shift if not contained and that's where the uncertainty is we don't know how far it's going to go because it isn't one country. it's many countries experiencing the same thing and we don't know how far the reaction function will go. >> reportergo. >> sreenivasan: what about the the idea of containment? if the bank of england stands and says we will do what we have to to prop up the british pound,

what about the other countries that are saying maybe this is our license to walk out to have the e.u. ourselves? >> i think that's a big issue. the central banks and finance industry will try to manage the shifting markets and turmoil to make sure we don't have a breakdown, bank failure or disorderly trading but i think you're pointing out this is a symptom of a much bigger thing. will the dutch think about leaving theñi european union? is this basically an end of an era of european integration? i think it puts a real pressure on global elites, academics, politicians who believe in globalization, who believe we have to make international agreements to solve global problems, to find a way to address the anger of people. who left out, whose wages haven't &one up, who don't trust the government and the experts anymore. >> all right, diane swonk, david wessel, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. you're welcome.

>> woodruff: as we heard earlier, president obama, during a trip to the united kingdom in april, said that it should stay in the european union. today, from stanford university in california, the president gave his appraisal of yesterday's outcome: >> while the u.k.'s relationship with e.u. will change, one thing that will not change is the special relationship that exists between our two nations. that will endure. the e.u. will remain one of our indispensable partners. our nato alliance will remain a cornerstone of global security, and in a few weeks we'll be meeting in warsaw for the nato summit. and our shared values, including our commitment to democracy and pluralism and opportunity for all people in a globalized world, that will continue to unite all of us. >> woodruff: the president spoke with david cameron by phone today, and according to the white house, expressed "regret"

that his "trusted partner and friend" decided to step aside as prime minister. mr. obama also spoke with german chancellor angela merkel; the two leaders said they regretted the u.k.'s decision to leave the e.u., but that they respected the will of the british people. now, there are questions about how this break may change the current of global politics. we explore what may lie ahead with ivo daalder, a former u.s. ambassador to nato, now at the chicago council on global affairs; richard haass is a former state department and top national security council official, he now heads the council on foreign relations; and margaret warner, the newshour's chief foreign affairs correspondent. welcome to all three of you. richard haass, i'm going to start with you. we just heard two guests say this could be the end of an era in terms of global economics.

what about in terms of the politics of this globe? >> i think historians will look back on this and this will be something of a defining or dividing line in terms of the u.s.-u.k. relationship, the president can use the rhetoric about it being special, but the fact is it isn't very special anymore and britain won't have the capacity to be a real partner, particularly as i think is likely scotland ultimately leaves and potentially northern ireland leaves so the united kingdom becomes a disunited kingdom. it's about what's going onñi in europe, the entire european project and how lots of other countries may decide to find their own path to distance themselves from europe. that's a part of the post-world war ii architects, part of the accomplishments of modern diplomacy to make europe stable. i think the last 24 hours, whatever message the voters

wanted to send to elites and establishment, they set in motion a dynamic that will distract from prosperity and stability in europe and conceivably beyond. >> woodruff: ivo daalder, how do you see the politicalñr fallout? >> i think it's potentially grave as richard is implying. i think we're seeing not only the return of nationalism in the united kingdom and particularly england but it can spread throughout the continent. you've seen calls in the netherlands for a referendum there, añi nexit, the same in france for a possible referendum for france to leave the union, and you see nations turning inward, becoming nor nationalistic, wanting to be self-relinted, breaking away from the european union and you get the renationalization of european politics we saw in the '20s and '30s and we know

the consequences of that. so there is the very real possibility of this spreading to the continent with more and more countries trying to leave the union, trying to turn inward, finding it difficult to achieve what they want to and therefore turning against each other. >> woodruff: some of this sounds fairly dire. margaret, i know you have been talking to a number of u.s. officials today. how do they see this politically? >> very much the way richard haass and ivo daalder do. one official said to me ant president obama, well, that was no drama obama. but in the weeks leading up, intelligence, diplomatic and defense officials were filled with dread about the consequences of this. i mean, nothing will change in terms of the u.k. being a major partner. i mean, this is a country that we share language and culture and world view. but as richard said, the concern is that it will be a less effective partner, that is that prime minister cameron and

whoever succeeds him will be a distracted partner, that they will be potentially weaker because -- if there's a breakup in the british isles and a poorer partner, as one official said, who may not even be able to make the 2% threshold in n.a.t.o. finally, of course, there's the question about whether it weakens u.s. diplomatic leverage in europe. some people feel that's been overstated. it wasn't terribly effective to work through britain, say, to get germany last year to soften the terms for greece, but, still, with europe -- with the u.k. having a seat at the table, the u.s. had at least eyes on the table and that won't be true anymore. >> woodruff: richard haass, how much at this point depends on how this is handled by world leaders, whether by the british leadership, by people like chancellor merkel, president obama? how much could that affect whati happens? >> not all that much, i'm afraid, judy. in terms of the british, they've

got really limited discretion. it's veryñi hard for a prime minister, for mr. cameron's successor, for the parliament to somehow ignore the will or voice of the british people, and then looking at it from the other side, i don't think brussels is going to necessarily still british, well, never mind, or set a precedent that 27 other countries may say, okay, we can define our own relationship. let's have an a la carte relationship that lets us choose a, b, c, but ignore d and f. so both sides, the hands are relatively tied. i know this sounds pessimistic and there are people who are saying just maybe we can work through this and it wasn't that definitive, but i actually don't think so. and even if there is considerable voters remorse and i expect there will be something of a collective hangover once the reality sinks in of the repercussions, i don't think the british or the european side will have that much discretion.

>> woodruff: ivo daalder, pick up on that. what do you see could determine whether this goes in a darker or more disturbing direction, what could keep things on track? i mean, who has the ability to determine which direction it goes? >> so i agree that there is not much leverage or capacity in britain, certainly with a lame duck and now defeated prime minister still on the helm and then a victor coming in who really doesn't know what needs to be done, but i don't necessarily agree that there isn't any leverage or room for maneuver particularly with chancellor merkel and with the united states. stepping back, we have been at this 70 years, this is not just a european project, it's very much an american project, and we have been central for those 70 years to have cajoled the europeans at particular times when things were going the wrong way to do the right thing and work together. our leverage wasn't the same as it was in the '40s, '50s and

'60s, but it's still there, we're still a very critical partner, and i do believe that, if the united states particularly working together with chancellor merkel, were to make it very career that, yes, we accept the results of the voters and, yes, there will be a different relationship between the united kingdom and the european union, but we still want the united kingdom to be a fundamentally strong european power and we want the europeans and the united kingdom and the united states to work closely together, we'll do it in n.a.t.o. and on an ad hoc basis outside of it, but we need to work this out together in order to maintain the central european project that we started 70 years ago. it's a defining moment for american diplomacy. >> woodruff: margaret, in talking to u.s. officials, do they recognize that and are they prepared to move in that direction? >> very much, judy. as ivo daalder just said, the american security for 70 or 80 years has relied on a strong, prosperous united europe that we

spent billions, trillions, i guess, through the marshall fund forward and through decades. after the soviet union collapsed, the way to get the central and european countries as part of this with all the ethnic conflicts was the carrot of e.u. membership, that was the incentive. so it's been very important. what u.s. officials are hoping going back to richard haass' point about buyer's remorse, is if the train can be slowed down of a lot of other countries clamoring to do this, other europeans will witness what happens to britain now and it probably won't be a pretty sight in the medium term. >> woodruff: much more to unfold. we want to thank all three of you for taking a look with us tonight. margaret warner, richard haass, ivo daalder, we thank you. >> thank you.

>> woodruff: in the day's other news, a bipartisan group of members of congress unveiled a companion bill to the gun control measure put forward in the senate by maine republican susan collins. the legislation would ban anyone on the government's "no-fly" list from buying guns. today, virginia republican representative scott rigell, a lifetime n.r.a. member who owns ten firearms himself, said he's urging house speaker paul ryan to support their plan. >> if someone represents such a threat, that we don't want them on a plane, why in the world would we let them go in and buy a gun? we are gonna be pressing the speaker's office, i'm not going to tell you exactly when but i've got an appointment today with the office, and when we come back into session, the pressure will be continuous. it'll be respectful, but we're

not going to let go of this. >> woodruff: the senate's version of the gun control bill cleared a procedural vote yesterday. but it's effectively stalled after falling short of the 60 votes needed to survive a filibuster. in west virginia, at least 18 people are dead in some of the state's worst flooding in a century. many of the deaths came in greenbriar county, one of the states' hardest-hit areas. thunderstorms have dumped up to nine inches of rain in some parts since yesterday. tens of thousands were without power and several roads were impassable. governor earl ray tomblin: >> initial reports from our local emergency management officials indicate at least six counties have seen extensive structural damage. early reports indicate more than 100 homes have been seriously damaged or destroyed. while it appears the active phase of this event will end today or tomorrow, there will be an enormous amount of recovery work. >> woodruff: tomblin said he's authorized up to 500 members of the national guard to help with

disaster recovery. in eastern china, the death toll from yesterday's massive storm has now risen to nearly 100 people. the number of injured also climbed to over 800, following the tornado that packed winds of about 80 miles per hour. rescuers continued their search for survivors today, while area residents spent the day combing through the debris of their collapsed houses. the centers for disease control and prevention today confirmed what has long been suspected in the flint water crisis. a c.d.c. investigation found lead levels in young children who drank tap water spiked significantly after the city changed its water source to the flint river in 2014. researchers found the children had a 50% higher risk of dangerously-elevated lead levels in their bloodstream than before the switch. and president obama is designating new york city's stonewall inn as a national monument-- the country's first to honor gay rights.

after a 1969 police raid on the greenwich village gay bar triggered an uprising, it became widely viewed as the birthplace of the gay rights movement. in his announcement, mr. obama said america's national parks should reflect "the full story of our country." >> woodruff: the presidential nominees also weighed in on the brexit result today. during a press conference at his scottish resort and golf course this morning, donald trump praised the decision to leave the e.u.: >> i really do see a parallel between what's happening in the united states and what's happening here. people want to see borders, they don't necessarily want people pouring into their country, that they don't know who they are and where they come from; they have no idea. >> woodruff: hillary clinton also responded to britain's vote

to leave. in a statement today, the former secretary of state said, "we respect the choice the people of the united kingdom have made." and now to the analysis of shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields, and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome to you both. this whole program up until now practically has been about the vote in the u.k., david, to leave the europeançó union. what do you make of this? >> well, in country after country we're seeing a conflict between what you might call urban cosmopolltons and less well educated ethnic nationalism, and ethnic nationalism is on the rise. i agree with everything ivo and richard and margaret were saying, i lived in brussels for five years when all this was coming together, and the elites, as much as i hate the fact the u.k. will leave the e.u., the elites largely brought this on

themselves. there was built into the european union project an anti-democratic, a condescending attitude about popular democracy. secondly, and i'm as pro immigration as the day is long, but we've asked a lot of people suffering in this company to accept extremely high immigration levels and we've probably overflooded the system. so while it's easy and i condemn the vote to get out, we've flooded the system with more than it can handle and not provided a good nationalism, a good patriotism that is cosmopolitan, outward spanning and confident and a bad form of parochial, inward looking nationalism has had free reign. brought it on themselves? >> i(#%9- the portions and advocates of globalization have been primarily obsessed with the well being of the investor class and stockholders and shareholders and beenñi

indifferent oftentimes callous to the dislocationñi and the suffering that people in countries affected by this trade, the expanded trade, the larger economy, have been victimized by it, and it has been a -- accompanied byñi an elitist condescension, in many cases, and taken advantage of. the shorthand today is we saw the words of the republican nominee iwaiting who is açó part-time presidential candidate and a full-time real estate developer, you know, he won, and barack obama lost. i mean, by any scorecard. there is no spin on this that in any way comforts democrats today. >> woodruff: if this is the case, then, david, what should we expect? does this mean that the sus going to do something similar in the election in november. not that we have to vote to leave

the e.u., but -- >> let's consider this a link in a long chain of the rise of ethnic nationalism. as içó matched, i was in europen the early '90s and from '45 through '94, we had this big process of integration with the internationalñr institutions, trade agreements, the european project, the fall of the berlin wall, and i remember at the end of my stay yugoslavia pulled apart. then you had the serbs and bosnians in an horrific war and you saw nationalism rise up the way we've seen ethnic nationalism rise in the middle east, polarization of this country, economic segmentation. if we came together for 40 years, we have been segmenting and splitting apart for all this time so weñi should expect a lot more of this sort of behavior unless we have a radical change in ourñi politics. >> woodruff: do you see something like this happening in this country? >> i think there is no question part of donald trump's appeal is to people who have been dislocated. this week, peter hart fo in

pennsylvania conducted a focus group of struggling middle class and blue-collar and service industry workers, most of whom were sympathetic. there were some clinton supporters, but were understanding. they felt trump was at least acknowledging them, that the two parties had been indifferent to their plight. it is no accident, judy, that the median household income in the united states is lower today than it was 20 years ago, and that has a political cost to it. as the top 1% and the top two-tenths of one percent flourished and prevailed, the rising tide lifted a lot of yachts but a lot of boats washed ashore. >> what's related, the economic stagnation but it's also feeding into and intertwaining with cultural sense of loss, and if

you look at trump voters, for example, and certainly probably true of brexit voters, they think immigration is a source of harm and not good. they think people areñr discriminated against. they think the country is multicultural. so these two forces, the sense of ethnic and economic loss, are coming together and that's certainly a dangerous formula. >> woodruff: so whereñr does that leave -- go ahead. >> and i don't argue with david's numbers, but these are not numberle-dragging people who are, you know, out of theñr case of deliverance. these are people who are really -- >> woodruff: you mean the people who voted. >> the people supporting donald trump. they're struggling to make it against enormous cost. it's no accident that the highest debt load of any generation in history are those graduating from college this the only ones with higher are the ones who graduated last year and the only ones high than that will be the ones graduating next year. so there is. you can look at the job picture

and it is highly encourak so when you growing eight-tenths ofñi oneñi percent, you know, is one thing to be accepting of change when that change is working for everyone, and that certainly was the case i&i the united states for the half century david described from '45 to '95. it was a remarkable era in world history. >> it should be said fear of loss of cultural cohesion is no small thing. i think it's worth it but it'sñi completely reasonable to think i'm losing the country we've had for centuries. >centuries. >> woodruff: you talked a minute ago about iáb) david. sounds like you're saying donald trump is the only one out there speaking, bernie sanders to some extent certainly during the primaries. is donald trump the only one of the two speaking to this? >> i saw a poll if you ask

donald trump supporters do they think immigration is good or bad for the country, 80% say it's bad. they're asked do they mind if they're around people who don't speak eng -- english well, three-quarters mind. there is a sense the country is gettingt( too diverse and the country as a whole is the loser, a sinking shivment and that is the central core of what trump is tapping into. >> when you're talking about people struggling to get by economic lyrics these are the ones competing with people who come to this country who are themselves trying to aspire to a better life and, so, they are competing, really, for the same economic positions, whether it's driver or whetherñi it's in the service industry, and,ñi so, understandably they see it as a threat economically and culturally as david described. but, at the same time, we stand alone as a country of assimilation, a country of

immigrants. we are not the united kingdom. i mean, if brexit or the equivalent thereof were put to the united states, we're talking about a third of the electorate that are nonwhite. >> the irony are the u.k. and u.s. are two of the best countries in the world in very cosmopolitan ways. in trump voters, the average income was $74,000, well above the median. it's a sense of collective as much as personal loss driving a lot of the voters. >> woodruff: two other things. one, the supreme court decision this week effectively, would it mean the president's effort to at least provide some protection for those undocumented immigrants in this country, maybe the parents or children of others here legally, the court said that will go back to a lower court, we'll see what happens, but it's a big setback for the president.

what does it sau going forward? >> it's a setback to his legacy. it's saying senators voted for a solution to this problem in 2013, to let people come out of the shadows. that parents of children who were american citizens, that they wouldn't be worried about immigration authorities showing up a and knocking on their door and means his legacy is depleted. you can only do so much by executive order. we never got a vote in the house of representatives. >> substantively i think it's a setback that so many people's lives are made more precarious as a matter of process, and process matters when we think about the constitution. when you change the status of 5 million people, that's a big thing, and that, to me, is something that should be done by law through congress, through the executive action -- i mean through executive signing the bill, it should be done in the normal constitutional process.

for one man, one president to make a change in american life that big through executive action seems to be overreaching the powers of the presidency. >> woodruff: a little over a minute left. i want to ask you both about the pretty unprecedented move in the house of representatives, democrats sitting on the floor for hours and hours to make a statement about gun control, that they wanted legislation called up for a vote. in the end, the house is now in recess. what if the democrats accomplished? was this an effective move on their part? >> what they did, judy, was they got incredible attention to it. having john lewis, a civil rights icon who led sit-ins in civil rights, led this. i don't think there is any question there is a profound change in public attitudes in support of background checks and i think hillary clinton as the democratic nominee support for abolition of assault weapons will be a political advantage in

2016. >> woodruff: 20 seconds. i have do have questions about that. there may be a shift in guns but the people who vote on the gun issue seem to be on the n.r.a. side. a very open question whether that's changed. >> woodruff: mark shields, david brooks, a big week of news. thank you both. >> woodruff: finally tonight, we mark the passing of a bluegrass pioneer. ralph stanley died overnight at the age of 89, after a long battle with skin cancer. his haunting voice epitomized what became known as the music genre's "high lonesome" sound, since forming the band "the stanley brothers and their clinch mountain boys" in 1946. but stanley rose to wider fame with his appearance in the 2000 film "o brother, where art thou?," for which he won a grammy. the newshour's jeffrey brown spoke with stanley back in 2002,

and asked him to explain his distinct singing style. here's part of that profile. >> that's not my voice. >> brown: what do you mean? >> that's a god-given voice. if it wasn't for the lord's will, i couldn't-- i couldn't sing that way. he gives everybody everything they have. that's what i'm a 'itellin' you about changin' the verse or maybe a word or two. it can come to me that way, see. that's what you call the spirit, comes to you. sometimes i can't sing a lick. sometimes i feel real good. sometimes i feel like just jumping straight up. that's when you can really do the singing. >> brown: just jumping straight up in the air. >> yeah. ♪ oh death

>> brown: ralph stanley is at his most haunting and ghostly in the unaccompanied dirge," o death." ♪ won't you spare me over til another year ♪ >> there's never been truer words ever written, because every word in that "o death" song is going to come. it's going to come to you and me and everybody else. and i try my best to make people understand it when i sing that, that it is. ♪ the children prayed the preacher preached ♪ time and mercy are out of your reach ♪ >> i never think about it, but i know-- i sing that every night, and i know that, one day, maybe tomorrow, or maybe 50 years from today, that's coming to me, see. it's already come to a lot of people. and that's true, a true song.

>> woodruff: and you can watch more of jeff's profile of ralph stanley online. at www.pbs.org/newshour. and gwen ifill is preparing for "washington week," which airs later this evening on pbs, and she's here with a preview. gwen? >> ifill: hi, judy. we are picking up where you leave off tonight-- with more analysis of the surprises this week. on brexit, at the supreme court, on the campaign trail, and the social media-powered sit-in on the house floor. so much more to talk about, and we'll tackle it, tonight on "washington week." judy? >> woodruff: and tune in for special pbs newshour weekend coverage of the u.k.'s dramatic break from the e.u. hari will anchor both nights from london. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> xq institute. >> you were born with two stories. one you write every day, and one you inherited that's written in your d.n.a. 23andme.com is a genetic service that provides personalized reports about traits, health and ancestry. learn more at www.23andme.com. >> fathom travel, offering cruises to cuba and the dominican republic. travel deep. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your financial future. >> bnsf railway. >> genentech. >> md anderson cancer center. making cancer history. >> and the william and flora

hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera the british people have voted to leave the european union and their will must be >> i believe we now have a glorious opportunity. >> i would go back to the polling station and vote to stay. simply because this morning the reality is actually hitting in. stocks plunge the, investors stunned. future of europe and the global economy now uncertain. >> what britain's historic vote means for your investments and your money tonight on "nightly business report" for friday, june t >> good evening. i'm sharon epperson in for