reading this conversation on the sidelines of the harasses 4 on which this year is that it catered to discussing a morally decent form of globalization that formulation in and of itself suggests that there's something off with the current system what is it it's a fact that. many things are changing in a very radical way in the world and globalization is only one trend but technological transformation or take a look at the course is maybe even the more fundamental things but they go hand in hand they go ahead you have an obligation require stick and watches and technologies require globalization you are right now when globalization is discussed it's usually discussed in economic terms of efficiency a labor costs production cheats etc and there is a legitimate benchmarks for business but. not for government because the government has to consider a much broader impact what happens to society is one factor is more about what

happens to the public health sector whether there is an opioid crisis do you think industrial democracies have managed globalisation in their pro-social rather than corporate ways. they have not understood that the rules of the game have to be changed and we are still. living with historical legacy so if industrialization because if you look at the social security systems education systems most of the most a legal frameworks in the investment world all of them are designed for industrial face of watching and now we are moving ahead and i think the problem is that our concepts are lacking behind what you're saying is that the government didn't do enough to create new jobs to compensate the schools to make sure that people are not taking drugs rather than you know taking measures to make sure that industrial

capacity is kept where those goods are consumed typically explanation is that market is going to be a liberal democracies have failed to solve problems that they created i think it's only half true and the problem is that they still believe that the methods they used after the 2nd world war which were very successful that the same methods are still. producing on the applicable i mean no what's a scandalous one for example donald trump and many others say that we want to preserve certain jobs certain factories here even if it means that the price of goods is higher we just want to people employed and that has every pull a factor in the society why is that not the legitimate point of view i think the point is that if you look at the u.s. . yes the number of people employed in the united states has grown in a messy way all the time and the fact is the us has been able to take benefit from

globalization but the fact is the do not i born in a group in finland and if you look at what's going on in parts of america today though i have seen and i've seen that i'm trying to explain to you that it's not because of political decisions it's because of technological change c.e.o. also took measures to protect their grammarian secretary and i know you can save this traps you couldn't do that when the horses were compensated by tractors. impressive impact little things that i often i hear that comparison often but i'm not sure we are quite of the same stage when such a major fact but let's look at it from the other perspective what the ization relies heavily encourages over consumption that's also a fact that has a major environmental impact that environmental impact is compounded by all the goods moving around and all the garbage being moved back miracleman to that. you

know soviet union it had huge environmental problems in spite of the fact that it was completely disintegrated from the only system as something to be used you know what i'm trying to explain that it's it's really quite often we are putting globalization hat on everything globalization has to play but to take logical factors are much more fundamental and you cannot save jobs when radical change is going on but you can create jobs and that's the problem they have not been able to create misery and they're not argue with that but i'm asking you why is it such a bad idea to think about localizing both production and consumption because that would take care of many things including environmental things that everybody so worried about i'm trying to explain that rules. when horses were compensated by tractors it led to 2 totally different kind of production system the same with

globalization we have seen now this this mass movement of production capacity into asia asian countries but we have seen 1st indications that may be but maybe early and they are the only people going through. conclude that thinking about technological change we have seen now 1st impact of 3 printing for example i did yes decided to move production from bangladesh to germany by because of political reasons though because of the fact that that much it makes it possible and i'm quite confident we are going to see a lot of changes which will lead to what you are saying more local local approach but that is thanks to talk technological development you cannot fight against technological changes otherwise you will then you know i don't think anyone at this point is trying to discourage technology from developing the question is whether some of the country companies that still rely on the old industrial model and shift

factories overseas. are continuing to exploit that same model because in vietnam or in china they are employing people not robots right they are in china they are employing more and more robots so that production is moving in human labor force is is not that relevant anymore in chinese production model but it is very relevant in vietnamese so so this is what happens in the world where i have seen this happen in europe of certain production moved from from sweden to finland then from finland to spain and portugal and then from spain and portugal to china but you can't imagine that the level of standard of living in finland can be as high as it is today if we had been keeping us saying there we're just comparing the european single market to globalization and there are a little bit there are. the big. is different as the single market is heavily regulated there are some compensatory rules some of the rules and contents of term mechanisms globalization is not do you think globalization as it stands today needs

to be if not regulated than at least coordinated i think we need scum and those government rules that's the most important thing so that you cannot compete with let's say with damaging the environment or or not respecting human rights and social rights of people that is something we i think that global community has to be able to solve these problems and that's that's creating opportunities for fairer . one that also discourage companies from sunday jobs overseas because if you are concerned about the environment if you are concerned about. rules that it makes sense to you to keep your production base closer to the areas where they where they could to consume but but i was at nokia for example if you look at the prices of mobile phones if you wanted to. come of this size mobile phones price that was the united states or something like 23000 euros and then 10 years later it

was 200 euros that was based on the idea that the action was organized in completely different way i heard you say. one of the most important things in governance is having a concept a broader education what you're trying to achieve. trumps seems to how one it may be wrong here make. me disagree with it but do you think that kind of world view has the right to exist we're looking at these consequences for this. technological revolution there are other similar than those late 19th century which were the industrial revolution consequences lack of rules a lot of gaps between different income groups and so on a lot of a lot of. challenges and i think we have 2 options one is to go to mosul she.

tried to return to the good old times and that is going on in the u.k. breaks it move those who are want to have a breaks if they say the u.k. have to come back to the times when we were able to decide on what happened in the ear because i hear exactly one european leader after another speaking about the brainiest there i'm i'm trying to say that this is worldwide venom and i can see that in russia i can see that in turkey i can see that in the internet states america great again this is not stylesheet idea people who are afraid of the future who have lost future perspective they are easy to be taken into that and then there is another option and that is let's try to keep these values we have principles we have without understanding that already we're very good until now but they're not working anymore and that's why i think that we have to move or focus what kind of system we would like to have into future and that is the discussion we are missing

almost everywhere in the world and to be honest trump is not doing that his message is completely completely nostalgic he will have to contend with some of those issues when he moves to discuss industrial tariffs with the european union which is expected to happen pretty soon at all nervous about i'm nervous because they're hitting both americans and the states i think there are we're looking at cold globalization there are 2 aspects we lose world or we go out and i'm coming from a country which believes strongly in we but we can see that unfortunately the major tendency is no thoughts when out if somebody is getting something it's we have to pay for that and this is wrong please read the globalization the way it has been carried out over the last couple of decades. it also benefit a. very small group of people very substantially left.

very very large groups and within numerous countries disadvantaged but their option is not to stop this technological development which is behind that if you look at the most reaches. people in the world they have something to do with digital mutual technologies and they have been able to benefit like rockefeller or carnegie late 1900 centuries exactly in the same way now the question is that instead of saying that why did we not stop that the right call is how to create new rules for the game so that everyone is able to benefit from that but you seem to be conflating technology and globalization and i think many people think there is you know there are so related i mean they are any they are not but that you can be all in favor of technology but if you want to have a more fair process distribution in a given country and you are ready to take certain risks for that you want to again

that may be some there may be. more than factory that employs last people than before but it operate in your country pays local taxes etc what we have today and you mentioned big tech giants they say their work everywhere around the world and i'm not clear where exactly they pay their taxes what are the best countries in the world if you look at. people's minds feelings if you ask me in russia of course but i suppose until you know if you if you're going to look after yourself countries to be honest you'll find very often nordic countries there what are nordic countries doing but they have a very fair social model necessary but it's a very our most open societies as well they are countries which have invested heavily in close so they have been kroeber ised but they have globalized with rules which are to be they may be able to make it possible that they were one has benefit from do you think the world can live by the rule. is that the nordic countries. and i don't know because it's the sort of it's a question of his sort of the legacies we don't have this imperial you story and

that's why i will not say open minded rigorous we don't we don't look that much history prime minister we have to take a very short break now he said we'll be back in just a few moments stay chained. to in your christina cook now helping move hague and morgan through the. work that mike i think i'm ready to work that sort of place and you're headed to the starboard see the cards and we'll do in fact underneath like today to install the international docking adapter 3 to pressure and you are the you're

here for around. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy on sunday shouldn't let it be an arms race is also a spearing dramatic development the only sleep i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time to sit down and talk. to welcome back to worlds apart with former prime minister a fellow as call. mr. you mentioned bracks and before i heard you describe it as as an example of populism people voting out of emotional

feeling rather than rationale is really vocal sound you know what about those leading that sproles despair utilizing people's rush no they see problems and by that you mean back the tears a little tears you know i often hear people describe laxity years as populist but wasn't david cameron the biggest pop populist of all i think you made a mistake you putting into the room an issue which is very difficult to be voted because i had a referendum in finland good rejoined do you know what we have very clear to all to use to join with the green meant we had negotiated or to stay there yes or no but in the u.k. case you knew only one option another one was. home i'm glad you mentioned other example because i think you're probably the best person to understand what kind of position cameron was in and i know that back down you had faced opposition from

your own party and you need to do to do a lot of persuasion in finland when you were taking your toe it's a referendum on the us i don't think that mr cameron did any of that in fact he later tried to blame my own country for sort of manufacturing that. agenda do you really think he demonstrated good leadership wasn't just a mistake or was it perhaps a characteristic of what kind of leadership he was offering. i can only say that afterwards when you get afterwards it was a fundamental mistake was it a vote about the state of the e.u. governance as many people claim that the time or was it ultimately a vote on the state of the british governance because we we have seen. over the last 2 years that it's not very inspired me it's always it's always like that so that if you look at. referendums or public opinion

lot of people are even when you were out on membership. joining the e.u. or leaving the or even when most people may be able to fall for that there are many people who are voting against the government like in finland when we go to don't or new membership one argument was to to vote against the government in the u.k. the most fundamental one was the fact that there were a lot of problems and people couldn't fully understand what is because of the membership what these speakers of or some other reasons the reason i'm asking about it is because i think it's a fair question and it's a fair case to discuss the quality of the so-called liberal leadership that is so it is they full of the populace because asking before about transfinite what kind of ideas he proposes many people dismiss it out of hand and yet many would claim that it is in part the liberal leadership that brought us all

to a place when we have to talk about morally decent forms of globalisation. you can blame that democratic systems have not been. waiting learn to mcchrystal until they're liberal in a no but i want to say that that we have time to time in democratic systems we have crises the fact is that you need to face some kind of transition period and we have 64 now i've seen several of them so that time's a time we have a crisis and after the crisis certain things will be changed and i think this is a very fundamental crisis because of the fact that so many things are changing so much pain usually this is exceptional in that respect when you were taking a fenlon into the european union being a democracy was enough now you have to be either a liberal democracy or illiberal democracy which is not i assume a good place is there any middle ground can

a democracy be conservative and both its economic and social approach it should be much more efficient i think the democratic system has to be changed we have a lot of legacies of early they say industrial age so that if you look at the structure of the government it's almost the same everywhere. and i don't believe that for example let's take an example. of a population who is going to take responsibility of that is it means to for violence is it minister for social and health is it minister for interior or whose responsibility is that i think we have to understand that the role of the government has to be changed as well and democratic systems have to be reformed absolutely i heard you say that in the future the meaning of power including political power will be decided by those nations who are most. conducive to have the best potential for scientific and technological development do you think these

distinctions between liberal a liberal democracy versus authoritarian system will matter they will matter because of the fact that in no one looking at digital technologies they are more or less applied in a different type of for entertainment and they are rather easy to be done because because you need only rather limited ecosystem for that but in the future when we are moving to health care transportation. education financial services it means that the ecosystem is going to be very complicated and you need and that is very relevant you need consumers citizens who are really educated well trained to have capacity to live in that kind of society and i think that is the challenge for every single society roughly the same way like earlier in the industrial society educational systems in the world have been designed for industrial society

to be growth and now we have we need changes in order to get citizens who have capacity to do that but i think it's clear that citizens in these so-called authoritarian societies also have such capacity in fact levels of education in both russia and china are pretty high and what's interesting is that the. virt to really integrated system sensualist systems do seem to have at least initially set an advantage over democracies in how they develop their technologies i mean china is the best example when it comes to big data when it comes to centralized data pools they are leading the world partially because of how they can apply their decisions do you think europe and other democracies will have to change their own system in order to compete with china or they will have to try to change china system in order to be able to play in the same i think used important. because if you look at technological development there are 2 dimensions vertical dimension how to get

let's say high tech lots used to be developed and that is a system requiring capacity a lot of funding a lot of decisions coordination and i believe that the authoritarian systems are having some benefits to do that but then there is this horizontal aspect or isn't the least asian of the watches and i believe that in the future this role of our research relation is going to grow and to be honest i believe that democratic systems are can be better are but can be better in that is specially that is an option for europe because europe is. traditionally have been quite good in regulatory. environment if you look at for example i know we're well mobile phones why. mobile business was growing so fast in europe and united because of regulatory and whiteman so that's why i think we are going to see competition between china chinese model russia is closer maybe to chinese model today than the european model

but but it has also european aspects and then the u.s. there are 3 ways and not all can do it. well you mentioned this whore i don't know if i can even pronounce that they're having this horizontal integration of the society and i think it's clear that it's already happening in china it is happening in my view in russia. do you see so the author is tearing the vertically integrated systems already becoming more transparent in my view because of technology and there is a clear understanding of that both within the chinese government and within the russian government. in order to compete the european system i think will have to become a little bit more flexible and agile and vertical integrated if you will do you see any movement in that direction come to helsinki late november it's not the best time i mean we have a very dark rather cold here in. that

you will find 21000 young intrapreneur. start up. all over the world coming to helsinki that time it's an indication that there is a there is a change going on and it was impossible to imagine that kind of things 10 years ago but i mean as you well know there is interpreters especially those who have from europe would be very critical of how long it takes the european union to pass certain legislation and make them compete on the same level playing field with peers in china or even in the united states sometimes on the short yes but on the long. game is the different think about. who and especially facebook saying 2 years ago government is our biggest enemy can you imagine that facebook. like that anymore. because they have

a book that they have recognized that the system without rules is probably not in their interest and who is on. and i have a less charitable interpretation for facebook motives. they have. that's acceptance and trust in their system we disappear if they don't have common rules when finland joined the european union we had to dream though many europeans had a dream that europe should be like america the american political system was like a like a model for europe and i bet you didn't do it today you know when you say that because you have to recognize that maybe on the longer term this european system has some some positive things that's as well but this complicated case because of today's complicated problems we have had easier times and i hope. in the future we have a minute left and i still want to ask

a question about something that you mentioned before that a legacy especially for bigger countries could be a bit like a ball in a chain. who do you think has a big problem with legacy is that the united states is that the european union or is the tresham. they are a bit different in. a bit different but i think when looking at countries that have played a big role in the world like british society has france. turkey russia japan or all the united states it's so difficult for them to understand that if things are going wrong it's it's not only question of circumstances that they are they are. they have to go. in front of the mirror and to look at what we should do and i'm coming from a small country and probably in a smaller countries it's easier to do that and to understand that something went

wrong but something. small country that is now part of a. thing that. has been able to look at the mirror and to see some of the good things. of the difficulties that it. has its problems but but but. it's if you look at the figures it's more than one percent of g.d.p. and 99 percent of everything is in our own ads and i think that the problem is that the european union is overestimating its capacity and it's trying to come too much to issues which are actually easier to be taken care of national governments see that and the opposite way it's not good enough when looking at trade issues. environmental issues or security and safety issues well prime minister it's always

a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for your time my pleasure thank you. same place same time here. what politicians do. they put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president. or somehow want to. have to try to be press it's like them before 3 of them or can't be good. i'm interested always in

the waters of the. question. why a paradise with some ground turned into a round the experimentation field but agricultural chemicals we know that these chemicals have consequences they are major irritants there's no question otherwise why would that the chemical company workers themselves be geared up that suited up locals attempt to combat the on regulated experiments but all from invading you have many of these people one foot into the biotech pharma and the other foot in the government regulatory bodies this kind of collusion is reprehensible while the battle goes on the chemicals continue to poison hawaii and its people so one has to ask the question whether there is a form of environmental racism going on in hawaii whether these companies feel they

can get away with this because the people have less political power. president putin visits finland and condemns a recent u.s. missile test saying the weapon appears to have been developed long before washington put the i.n.f. treaty. link to the audio sheds light on how the us oil lobby has managed to criminalize protests against pipelines. and 6 is on from a chemical attack near damascus we look into the official investigation which is still ongoing. for me andrew farmer will be here next hour with all the latest world news headlines until then cross-talk is next stay with us.