when they. first started to take root it's proponents claim that it's going to be a panacea to almost all the world's ills lifting millions out of poverty peace through trade and yet as an old saying goes the only 3 keys to the mouse trap. we trade commerce similar complications to discuss that i'm now joined by a former prime minister of finland. prime minister it's good to talk to you thank you very much. we're recording 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 suggest that there is something off with the current system what is it it's a fact i. mean it seems so are you using a new. trend. transformation or. maybe even the more fundamental things but they go hand in hand.

now when globalisation 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 in there. 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 self industrialization because if you look at the social security systems education systems most of the let's say legal

frameworks in the investment world all of them are designed for industrial face of technology 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 good 2nd sound. explanation is that market economy 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 this the same methods are still applicable and 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 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 a legitimate point of view i think the point is that if you look at the u.s. the number of people employed in the united states has grown in a massive way all the time and the fact is that the u.s. has been able to take benefit from globalization but the fact is that certain sectors do not i born in a great deal in finland and if you look at what's going on in certain parts of america today no i. i've seen have seen that i'm trying to explain to you that there's a political decisions because of technological change c.e.o. also took measures to protect their grammarian secretary and i know you couldn't save this trops you couldn't do that when the horses were compensated by tractors.

impressive impact. that i often i hear that comparison often but i'm not sure we are quite of the same stage when such a major impact but let's look at it from the other perspective. relies heavily and 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 get. to 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 a and then others 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 trying to explain that they can't use have 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. people are going to win. it made me conclude thinking about technological change we have seen now 1st impact of 3 printing for example i did guess decided to move production from one 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 approach but that is thanks to technological development you cannot fight against technological changes otherwise you will then 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 not that relevant anymore in chinese production model but it is very relevant in vietnamese oh so this is what happens in the world where i have seen this happen in europe with 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 as saying there were. just comparing the european single market to globalization and there a little bit sarah. the biggest difference is the single market is heavily regulated there are some compensatory rules and contents of terror mechanisms globalization is not do you think global ization as it stands today needs to be if not regulated than at least coordinated i think we need scum and rules and rules that's the most important thing so that you cannot. eat with it's ate with damaging the environment or or not respecting the human rights and social rights of the 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 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 auction was organized in completely different way i heard you say. one of the most important things in governance is having a concept a broader an occasion of what you're trying to achieve and trump seemed seems to have one it may be a wrong you 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 of this. technological revolution they're rather 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 lot of challenges and i think we have 2 options one is to go to no sell she and 2 to try to. do the good old times and that is what is going on in the u.k. breaks it move those who are want to have the brakes 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 really quite venom and i can see that in russia i can see that in turkey i can see that in the united states america

great again this is no style sheet 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 looking at cold globalization there are 2 aspects. or we wrote and i'm coming from

a country which believes strongly in we but we can see that unfortunately the major tendency is now sorts out if somebody is getting something it's we have to pay for that and this is wrong please let the globalization the way it has been carried out over the last couple of decades also benefit a. very small group of people very substantially left. very very large groups within. numerous countries disadvantaged but their option is not to stop this technological development which is behind that if you look at the most richest or rude people. 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 their work everywhere around the world it's not clear where exactly they pay their taxes what are the best countries in the world if you look at. people's mindset feelings if you ask me in russia of course i suppose until you know if you if you're going to look at drinking countries to be honest you will find very often nordic countries there what are nordic countries

doing but they have a very fair social model yes they are in whatever way are most open societies as well they are countries which have invested heavily in 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 rules that the nordic countries. and i don't know because it's a question of historical legacies we don't have this imperial history and that's where legacies are openminded records 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. so

what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy loon from day shouldn't let it be an arms race is on all fronts very dramatic development the only posts really i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time time to sit down and talk. welcome back to worlds apart with former prime minister of ireland as call a halt to. mr. you mentioned bracks and before i heard you describe it as as an example of empathy populism people voting out of emotional feeling

rather than rationality of vocal sound you know what about those leading that sproles despair or utilizing people's rush no they see problems and by that you mean back the tears 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 the 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 was it ultimately a vote on the state of the british governance because we and we have seen. over the last 2 years that it's not very inspiring he. is 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 even 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 only human bishop 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 then full of the populace because asking before about transfinite what kind of ideas here propose this 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 globalization. you can blame that democratic systems have been. plaguing learn to mcchrystal until they are liberal in a new 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 times of 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. for a population who is going to take responsibility of that use 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 see that in the future the meaning of power including political power will be decided by those nations who are most. conducive for have the best potential for scientific and technological development do you think these

distinctions between liberal a liberal democracy versus authoritarian system will matter. because it's affect that. know when 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 into 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 investors or set the 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 those ver to really integrated system centralized 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. decisions coordination and i believe that there was a retiree and 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 reserve is going to grow and to be honest i'm i believe that democratic systems are can be better 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 the internet united because of wriggle to read whiteman so that's why i think we are going to see competition between china chinese moro 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 are going to do it. well you mentioned this horror 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 we'll 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. if you will find 21000 young into. 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 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 libya different think about. and especially facebook saying 2 years ago government is our biggest enemy can you imagine that facebook.

is saying like that anymore. because they have broken that they have recognized that the system without rules is probably not in their interest and rules are making and i have a less charitable interpretation for facebook motives. that they have been ised 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 your kind of value doing today and 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 yes as well but this complicated case because of today's complicated problems we have had easier times and i hope we will have them in the future we have a minute left and i still want to ask with

a question about something that you mentioned before that. specially for a bigger countries could be a bit like a ball and chain. who do you thing has a bigger problem with legacy is that the united states is it the european union or is it russia. 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 so them stances that they are there but they have to go. through 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 small country it's easier to do that and to understand that something went wrong but something went wrong here from a small country that is now part of a much bigger and to do you thing that entity and i'm talking about the european union has been able to look at self in the mirror and to see some of the good things that it is in the past and some of the difficulties that it would. like me wish and it has its problems but but but. it's if you look at figures it's a bit more than one percent of g.d.p. and 99 percent of everything is in our own hands 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 and local governments even and the opposite way it's not good enough when looking at trade issues they can let you go issue standardization 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 personal thank you thank you. our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to hear again same place same time here and while there are. going back to medieval days you have the church which is like a monetarist present day 21st century where they would discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a bed they were in power and they enclosed this little model and now we've got neo feudalism or you guys central bankers discussing how many derivatives can be

stuffed into a worthless action fund and we've got folks in san francisco in newark new jersey die for medieval diseases. in his community there are people who believe that it's ok to sell fractional food on my table it's really hard there are no jobs and you see that i've got kids that ask and as a parent. i can come up with arguments there's a lot of conflict in the game between the 2 most of the conflict i would say over balls around money and most of them money is made. close one on each of those he knows each other is good business the state of california makes $6000000000.00

a year off to prison complexes you get some point in your life where. you don't care anymore no my car is a monster so your care might anything. donald trump cancels a state visit to denmark after calling remarks by its prime minister nasty she rejected his offers of greenland adding the proposal was absurd. it's revealed that the u.k. government agreed to a whopping $6000000000.00 pounds in arms sales to saudi arabia during the gulf states 4 year bombing campaign in yemen which has led to the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet. and not as easy as it looks so our correspondent takes to the skies with russia's elite a robotic steve before the show. about a bad thing. made by.