tv Bloomberg Debate Bloomberg May 7, 2016 10:00am-11:01am EDT
of --ne: the implications that's what we're discussing today. we're discussing locations on trade business and regular occasions if the u.k. does decide to leave the unique who -- the eu. we have three who believe they should stay. monti, jon moulton , carolyn fairbairn, lord norman levy., and maurice
thank you for joining us in the debate. first of all, just to start off, i'm going to give you each 20 to 30 seconds, state your case. i feel compelled to give an opinion, i don't consider that making such a decision is only a u.k. decision. it's a decision regarding the eu. irritated that david cameron has decided to greatith this fantastic, european dream just for internal purposes and career path. i believe that this is far too serious an issue to just put his career as the key elements of the decision. i think the u.k. should stay, and the damage will be much
bigger for u.k. then eu. u.k. has that the always been an open country. ago,ould go 1000 years it's always been open to the world. entrenching the u.k. is an island is a big mistake. norman: he said the present situation in the u was not satisfactory, and it needed radical change. i'm sorry to say i don't think that radical change was met, it was disappointing. given that he didn't achieve what was necessary, on balance, not an easy decision we ought to leave. i think the issue of self-government is extremely important.
i'm sorry to say that's been excluded from what we agreed originally on the debate. if the issue even for city people just issued in markets -- interested in markets. carolyn: we speak for thousands of businesses, and we've been talking to them for over two years since the referendum first at the agenda. what they have been telling us repeatedly is that the value of the single market to market access, not just in the eu, but around the world for trade deals is valuable. it's valuable for jobs and assessment in the future and prosperity of our country. what they tell us as they don't see any way of getting that same market access from outside the european union. jon: the u.k. needs out. minor partnt to be a of an economically crippling bureaucracy. we want free trade in europe, we want friendlier national relations with europe, and little else.
that's the right long-term place to be. this decision is all about the future, it's the long-term health of this proud nation. the european single market has been more than anything else in british conservative party construction. prime minister thatcher, lord cofield. it slightly paradoxical that still, under the conservative people, the u.k. might decide to leave that huge benefit to the rest of us in europe alone. judging just from the point of view of the u.k., unafraid there will be serious just advantages for u.k. consumers, businesses, and for the u.k. as such in case of leaving. for consumers, because the
,enefits from the single market in terms of quality, prices, varieties would be wiped off, to some extent. for businesses -- for one reason in particular -- governments, including u.k. governments, have the almost invincible temptation to play with subsidies and to distort competition. and through a strong competition played by nocan be means out of tiny london. it would be impossible to put the british companies on a domestic base, and able to exercise a word like competition with the government which may play with subsidies. finally, the u.k. would be using an opportunity to be the real
europe,f the eu, and of rather than having considered that role exclusively to germany. norman: this is not about whether you like europe or not, i love europe in my home is in france. tomorrow, orme today. this is about the european union. in britain's relationship with it. an european union is clearly economic failure, this is partly because of the failure of the eurozone. it's a failure in other ways. you had a miserable rate of growth, it had very high unemployment. appallingly high in most of the european union, including mario monti's italy.
venture, soeconomic that's not all that surprising. it's a political venture, it always has been. when i wasnd that was always clear that this was a political movement. the five presidents report. the purposes of a political union, united states of europe. is, is with the brexit not something we wish to be part of. this is crazy to be lumped into and tied into a political project which we don't want to be part of, we don't agree with the objective. and is something which is an economic failure, we could do far better with the freedom outside the european union. if you lookancine: at the geopolitical concerns in
china or russia, are we not stronger politically is a block? you are right, we should look at the global picture. in britain does. many european countries, know this very well from conversations i had my was chancellor, they look at things purely in the european context. our context and perspective always has been global. there's no country in the world which has more global links than we do. there is no city in the world which is more international in london. genuinely international. and through all of our other links, we have a global perspective. ,nd that is what is important looking both politically and economically. the europeans for the most part
don't have that situation. the city ofuld london lose its status as international financial capital because of the u.k. leaving the eu? jon: it might do it whether it stays in or comes out. if it stays in the eu, it runs the risk of being gradually eroded with access legislation -- regulation. potentially financial transaction. all of this stuff which actually erodes. to degree, it's economic warfare with harris. -- with paris. staying in has a risk, coming out has a risk. it can be a tremendous advantage. look how london propelled itself in the 1980's and the financial market, when hurtling past new york. that was because it was different, not because it was cramped in underneath the bridge of your accounts. i'm confident there is no one on this platform was ever read some
of these economic directives that came out of europe. they are nonsense. there is a risk of staying in, there is a risk to going out. but the risk of going out, i believe, is less. francine: you can renegotiate better if you are at the table, possibly. mario: no. francine: i'm asking mario monti, he was there. mario: i was there. i was there to eliminate many regulations. it is true there are too many , and we learned from the brits that there's a name for this, which is silver plating. which is an obscure terminology to indicate that on top of the by thel proposal commission, the council, the parliament, then each member state -- the u.k., i'm afraid
the very first place, at the -- heref transposing there are nostalgic spirits, which are very nice things. at the moment of transposing a directive into national --islation, there is businessn is driven, inspired perfectionism, which couple kids the directive more and more. may i come back for a second to a proposition that i, in principle, admire of lord lawson. the countryindeed that has the greatest global perspective. but i think the word leadership slipped into your language. i'm afraid that is the nostalgic concept. the u.k. is extremely helpful to
all of us to gain, because it has had, for centuries, a global perspective. but the global perspective would hemmed byd if it were a fairly small, highly distinguished, insular country. which, for example, in areas where the u.k. has employed global leadership like the fight against climate change, like competition policy, and you imagine the deeply respected do. competition authority to with the european commission, for all of its bureaucrats did, mainly to say to ge and , no,well eight years ago sorry, you cannot make this merger because the market would suffer too much. including in europe. one of the companies that was most grateful for that brussels
, iervention was rolls-royce believe, a british company. which felt its role as a producer of aircraft engines would have been paralyzed by combination between ge and honeywell. can you imagine? with all due respect come out of london, and authority to block a authorized have an already by the justice department in the u.s., and had the strong backing of president george w. bush? francine: we also have president obama talking on trade, coming here and forcibly arguing the u.k. should leave the eu. -- this means that if the u.k. were to leave, it would take 10 years to have some kind of trade deal. carolyn: there isn't a false
choice here between being in the eu and being global. a lot of companies are baffled by the idea that you can either be facing europe or facing international. consumers million that you can trade with with absolutely no barriers enables you to be far more successful, globally. we have 55 trade deals internationally. i think he was making an important point about the fact that the world is increasingly trading in regional blocs. of there being their five to 10 years of uncertainty is backed up in a lot of portents now. i think he is saying things we heard in other places. norman: i think it's understandable why president obama took the position he did. the u.s. is negotiating several deals as simultaneously, and it always has negotiated several deals simultaneously. deliberately we were put in the back end of the queue was not right, and
president obama will be in office when it happened. can i go back to something you said earlier to nigel when you said would we be weaker globally , because of the cumulative power of the eu? the eu may be good at trade policy, but as a geopolitical hopeless.ey are quite they can agree on foreign policy questions. -- they cannot agree on foreign policy questions. u.k. as af the geopolitical player is false. it's a very ponderous way in which decisions are made. we would be more effective making decisions on our own more quickly, rather than going through this laborious process of trying to get the consensus of a very large unit. ♪
clearly there's a lot of red regulations and independent of making decisions from the political standpoint. it's not by getting out of the eu that you will be at or off, it will not help great it will not the u.k.. i think your role as a high rate -- a highly respected country would be informing the eu, rather than outside the eu. >> the proportion of trade that we do is a declining minority. nigel: the world is our oyster. one of the problems with the european union is that it has a democratic deficit.
and a bureaucratic surplus. and neither of those things are good. as far as the british people are concerned, the democratic difference is very serious. this is with the regulars and. there's far too much regulation, and many of these meetings don't have anything to do with trade. they are still burdened with this regulation. the national government also introduce regulations. when get entangled with this. the difference is that we can get rid of that business regulations, that's what the factory did. is of the results of that the british economist are doing far better. it was a european regulation
where you are stuck, you can't do anything about it. and now influence within the european union has declined considerably as a result of a decision we took not to be a member. not to exchange fairly for the euro. everyone said we would be mad, we must go into the euro. ,e decided we didn't want to and i think even the cbi now admits it was a big mistake to advocate that britain should join the euro. is there isans now a eurozone focus within the european union, we had a choice not to be part of it. it was the right choice. we pay a price. much to lose with the eurozone caucus now, which has an infield qualified majority. the ability of united kingdom to influence decisions in brussels
has greatly diminished as a result of our decision, which i think was the correct decision not to be part of the eurozone. but it comes back to the politics, and economically, we will do fine. we didn't have world trading police in the debbie to. we can claim full membership in that if we leave the european union. it's less than 4%. we can do very well, much, much better outside it. and we do not wish to be part of this political project for political union, united states of europe. since we don't want to be part of that project, mario monti would like to see a united states of europe. mario: no. when you declare it's a political union? mario: i don't see it as a
necessity, certainly not in the short term. nigel: long-term, that is what you are going for. [laughter] that's fair enough. mario: thank you. nigel: we don't want to be part of it. it's widely believed by the cbi that you have to be part of it in order to sell to it. there are rule-making opportunities they give you access. the fact is that many, many countries sell to the eu without being members. america actually sells more to the eu that we do. switzerland, per capita, sells more to the eu than we do. even when you look at services, the intra-trade in services within the eu's growing less quickly than eu growth of services to the rest of the world. withgel said, our trade
the eu has dropped by 10 percentage points from 54 to 44%. that's a dramatic drop. it illustrates that the eu is a declining product, a slow growth region. some said it like a walled garden. it's like a walled garden in which the trees and plants desperately need some water. carolyn: most businesses are saying they really do value the fact that they have no tariff barriers within europe. and can trade very freely. it enables them to trade more effectively with the rest of the world. to, some of our most important industries, like the car industry which has 10% tariffs. you really believe that germany is going to allow a 10% tariff to be imposed on british cars? carolyn: we need to be
incredibly clear and understandable through the process of leaving looks like. norman: you think germany would allow that? carolyn: it's not just up to germany. there are 27 countries, all of whom would have a veto. article 50.eading it's a frightening read, because there are veto powers that -- norman: it's not in the least frightening. the most amazing thing about , the process of withdrawal says the for two years, for two years everything remains exactly as it is. and britain participates in all decisions. carolyn: the clock is ticking. norman: after two years, everything is the same. difficult to call authoritative british citizens a bit of pragmatism, but i do. knowocratic deficit, we
our democratic systems throughout western democracies are in deep crisis. , if a british prime minister decides to appoint a cabinet minister, maybe even a cabinet minister not having been elected as a member of parliament, what sort of democratic scrutiny as that person to go through before taking office? none, if i'm informed. the equivalent of a minister, european commissioner, cannot be appointed by the president of the commission, or at least, the appointment may not be real and valid before there is an approval by the european respectnt, with all due , is also a parliament. on the basis of written and oral
examination, conducted in total transparency throughout europe. also, pragmatism, please. we can always renegotiate with the u.s.. let's not lose perspective here. we all in the world have a phase in which the appetite for , trade liberalization, etc., has plummeted down and down. that delude yourselves with the u.s., for example, the queue is another thing, but quite apart from the queue from the anglo-saxon solidarity spirit -- the u.s. is turning like the rest of the world more and more to closer and protectionism. is the european union
that has the protectionist, i'm afraid. it's one of the main reasons that president obama thinks it's in america's interest that we should stay, because we will be a liberalizing influence within the european union. the americans are understandably concerned about protectionism in the united states. union, and inn the european union, they are also concerned about the degree of anti-americanism, which there is in the european union. but less in france, for example. us to try to reduce the significance of that. but that's america's decision. francine: that would mean that the u.k. is a stronger and more valuable trading partner for the u.s.. i'm talking about not
what's in the interest of the united states, that's for them to decide. i'm talking about what's the interest of the united kingdom. it's in the interest of the united kingdom to regain our freedom and our democracy. mario monti, for whom i have a high regard, referred to democracy. democracy, but he suggested that we weren't really democratic because ministers were appointed by the prime minister, not by the people. that's ridiculous. is that ifacy means the people are fed up with the government, they can kick it out. and laws which event past can be changed by the subsequent government. you can't do that in the european union. it doesn't happen. it's not possible. i think he suck about the house of lords. june, 1999, may be lord lawson was not in europe at that
time. the european parliament dismissed, i.e., sent home the executive chair of the european commission. europe asappen in well. u.k. is notng the democratic, i'm saying that i don't see much reason for the u.k. to take a high moral ground vis-à-vis the young, imperfect, but rather flourishing new form of democracy that is the only form of democracy in a states that isf they are in the world. all of the rest -- many of the institutions to which the u.k. would like to continue to belong -- the imf, the wto, etc., they are all very good. they are composed just to bureaucrats, but they don't have any form of democratic briefing.
earlier mario monti said he's not in favor of the european union, now he's talking about the young democracy of the european parliament. wilma will happen, the european parliament will acquire more and more power. britain has something like 10% of the seats in the european parliament. something like 8% of the votes in the council of ministers. this is moving in the direction of political union, we are a very small part of it. i do not believe that democracy can be exercised over 28 countries. european people in that sense. there's a french people at a british people and the german people. there is a swiss people, even though they speak differently which is. but you do not have 28 country democracies, it simply cannot work. we are getting more and more remote and more and more interventionist. i want to come back to
the economical aspect, because i think that when you are speaking about leaving europe, you asieve that things will stay they are, as he mentioned, in two years, then things will go much better because you will be given privacy. i think nothing could be more wrong is this assessment, because you are simply forgetting one single aspect, which is the anger of all the european countries which will react. you believe that it's a soft belly, that europe is really something which has very little strength, and will not react. we will just accept the criticisms. norman: this democratic institution, the european union,
will get angry that the people, through one of its members, decides to withdraw. it's a very poor advertisement for the european union. in order to encourage friendship and cooperation. is it fair and democratic that one of the 28th is allowed to ask its citizens, whereas the 27 of us -- norman: the alternative to that is that europe is compelled. ify know very well that britain withdraws, there's a risk. a risk that other countries will begin to think about it. and that is for each country to decide. i'm afraid i think it is a shameful argument to say that there would be anger. there are to be respect for the votes of an individual country. francine: we heard that from
finance ministers. maurice: you are believing that all the countries will accept that things will go as if nothing has changed. if there was a brexit. i think nothing could be more wrong than this. because people will protect their own country, they will protect their own businesses. fight, and you cannot believe that people will accept simply that you are putting at risk europe and that you will continue to benefit from everything that europe has given to u.k. i think this would be wrong. think getting back to the pragmatic case of what the alternative would look like really does matter. without necessarily talking about anger, free trade deals are really difficult to do. we know that. what i haven't heard, and i think i remember say they
haven't heard is what the alternative would look like. to the trade deals that we had with europe. and those deals around the world and why you are so confident that there will certainly the a blossoming of free trade when we know it's incredibly difficult to do and it will not be in the interest of several of our trading partners to do those deals with us. i will tell you briefly what the alternative is. the alternative to being in the european union is not being in the european union. [laughter] it may surprise you, but most of the world is not in the european union. it may also surprise you that most of the world is doing a lot better than most of the european union. francine: an unnecessarily better than the u.k.. jon: it will mess up the european union. arefear arguments interesting. we would do quite well if we didn't get any fresh trade agreements. there would be more impact on
europe then there would on the u.k.. they would lose more jobs in europe if there was a brick wall between here and the eu. that?ne: why do you say given only 20% of their trade comes to us. jon: the difference in size. the fact of the matter is, we have a trade deficit. total istude of the fromhat on the face of it terrible consolation, lose about 270,000 jobs. carolyn: out of 500 million people. jon: the reality is there people losing jobs. a second?y on for the central thing about damage to the u.k. economy on leaving, which is the main argument that's being trumped up is a trade agreements will take forever to get sorted.
they don't matter that much, that's a fair point. the next point is why would it take longer than the second world war first be able to get some reasonably functional trade agreements in place? we can. we've never had to do it in a rush, two years a long time. --could get most services serviceable agreements. we wouldn't get full agreements, the stuff the deal with levees. francine: would you get passports? thingut again, passport isn't the be-all end-all. very important. one of the main reasons for being here. jon: it's a benefit to existing largest to sheehan to have institutions large to have regulations. it's not a benefit for the rest of the economy, actually dissuades competition. francine: why would you take the risk?
we don't really know what any trade agreement would look like or how anyone else would react very. jon: done nastily, we will have some kickback from people going rotten swines, the brits. is fear there will be other referendums. they have not fix the treaty when they broke it over the european bailouts. didn't dare risk the national referendums. there's a fear amongst the ruling class in europe that there would be other referendums. is it worth the risk of coming out? the balance of probabilities is the future is better out than in. you live in a country where growth is something which only the older generation remembers. it hasn't succeeded for you. maurice: the older generation members higher growth, it also
whichers huge dissidents, cost the unemployment at the time to the generations. mario: future generations are now they are. effect of not having some fiscal discipline in a rather inventive and imaginative country and politics, brought us to many bad things. because you touched the point that eu and italy, i can assure you that if it were for originally italian legislative initiatives in the area of anti-environments -- antipollution legislation and many, many other things, consumer protection, italy, without the eu would now be 30 years backwards. may i make another point? had,ny conversations i
because there was an alternative. in many conversations i had, i was then prime minister with david cameron and also in the house of lords, the best part of which has joined us this morning. [laughter] believed forcefully the following case. the u.k. is more liberally oriented, more lover of a single market, more liberal competition than the rest of us. we desperately need a greater influence of the u.k. in the eu policy process. i was commissioner when the issue of the euro or not was put to the u.k.. i never spent one word to try and convince the u.k. to join the europe. now i think it's a completely different story. and what i said to my then -- if youlleagues was
started a proactive crusade in europe, by asking the single market be really taken seriously , with the same instruments of enforcement that competition policy has, quick enforcement rather than taking three or four years for infringement procedure, finally to be able to remove an obstacle created by make twoates, if you or three -- you put two or three conditions to have a more open and competitive broad single market, including for digital or services in general, you would put in great difficulty france.
in some difficulty, local germany. the lender which is closer to a social market economy. you would have an enthusiastic ring of lines from northern europe, from central and eastern europe, and parts of southern thepe, and you would be winner of this transformation of the european union, exactly like the brits would like it to see. this was not done, and the integrity of things that are not very serious and can be sold in order to persuade people that the game has changed have been given. norman: i want to go back to her point about trade. she seems to think trade is a form of warfare. it's for mutual assistance, everyone wants trade deals. the idea that it's very
difficult to negotiate trade deals, i don't accept. i don't accept that it's necessarily easier through the eu, just because of the size of the eu. if you look at small countries like chile, like singapore, like korea, they've actually negotiated free-trade agreements which are far larger actually than those of the eu. you add up the gdp of the countries with which switzerland has free-trade agreements, it's much larger than the combined gdp of the countries with which the eu has free-trade agreements. and furthermore, the free-trade agreements of many countries outside the eu include to some extent financial services, which the eu's free-trade agreements have not been able to do. carolyn: i don't think that is right. talked people are negotiating trade deals, because they benefit consumers in the long run the damage from users in the short run to in order to protect markets, they take a long time. we just have to look at this.
it's been four years in the making and nowhere near conclusion. we know that the swiss free-trade deal through the eu took 16 years. the canadian deal took seven years to ratify. the evidence is it takes a long time. theheory they are good over long run, but there are strong vested interests that come out. i think that is what we would see if the u.k. left the european union. your examples are eu trade deals. the eu takes a long time, doesn't mean it has to take a long time. the same is true with the tcp -- tpp? in the overall scheme of things, we do an enormous amount of growing amount of trade. we have no bilateral trade deals with the united states. you don't need them. policed bya world
the world trade organization, i'm very pleased with that. you don't need trade deals. this augustn assembly, go shopping, you roll probably far too busy. but you don't just get goods from new york. you see goods from all over the world. there are many more important things than trade deals. is a hugery problem problem. it's particularly crippling for small businesses which are not really represented by the cbi at all. head -- i'm shaking my the point thatn: he is making is absolutely correct. there are countries outside the eu that sell more, and whose growth supports the eu and is faster than that of britain.
unless you get a worse deal if you get out of the eu. is not a physician. i think that when you are speaking about this kind of issue, you will always find reasons to stay or reasons to leave. and you will build your case. and you are not listening to the key issues, which are what the people in europe will feel about this. as you said, there is something much bigger than trade, which is being or not being the big , even if youinents nowan island, that we are with the tunnel connected. if you want to be part of the
stream or not. you should look at what europe has been doing the last 50 or 60 years. you see that there is a lot of issues which have been managed properly by europe. we've avoided wars, we've been building things together. i think that thinking solely with what the u.k. can do than chile or singapore. it's not about trade. our position as we wish to be a self-governing democracy, and we are hugely connected. nigel: in ways that have nothing to do with the european union. london is the most international city in the world. that is nothing to do her with the european union. -- that has nothing to do with
the european union. you might not have been the largest place you are of financial services in london. i would argue that without the support and trade you are doing with your, you would not be where you are today. nigel: that's nonsense. let me finish. we are also on the non-economic side, probably the most important member of nato after the united states. a long way off. leave a seat on the security council of the united nations. the commonwealth contains a love the most exciting emerging worlds, not least, india. we have connections -- international connections greater than any other european country.
island,lk about ssm geographically we are an island. -- to talk about us as some island, geographically, we are an island. union toe european three mystery unfortunately, it's turned out rather closer to a nightmare. wish our friends in france -- and also in italy, certainly, well. but we think they are on the wrong track. if they wanted while the track, let them do so. but we wish to choose our own destiny. that's what it's all about. francine: mario monti. mario: i have not heard a word on research. we know that research is a key driver of economic growth.
there is at least one aspect where the eu is doing quite well. fundsl that much of its go to british universities and research centers. wonder what would our british friends make of a u.k. out of the eu in this respect. ,econdly, and finally everything i said, i want to stress this, this morning, is not whether brexit will be in the interest of the eu or not. i came because i've been invited, here in london, to my cells in the shoes of british consumers, companies, and even of the u.k.. that therere to say would certainly be some advantages, mainly disadvantages
for the eu, if the u.k. were to leave us, but there might also be one big advantage. which is not the one you are considering, namely, no longer to have to deal with this rather difficult partner. i, for one, would make the proposal the day after the u.k. leaves the eu, that the eu should finally shift to one official language only, english. because so far, it would have it wouldir to select language of a large member state. course, ireland would pocket a brand by doing so, but i
francine: becomes a referendum of what people should be thinking about. norman: people should be thinking about what is the european union about? it's a political venture that we don't wish to be part of. it has no economic benefit yet to the european union itself. the european union is one of the slowest growing countries in the world -- one of the groupings in the world with one of the highest levels of unemployment, which is very sad. it's a political project which we do not -- the british people
do not wish, and the french don't either. france has elite to run it. isas injured in a poll where french people were asked would you like to have a referendum like the british people have so that you can leave the european union, and 53% of the french said yes. francine: there would be huge queues on what people need to think on that day in the booths. mario: as a british citizen, do i have much greater confidence in the political class in the u.k. that i have generally? and what i feel comfortable in having this belittle class leading me and my fellow u.k. citizens in the rather untested
and perilous adventure of going time whene wind at a countries are trying to combine rather than to pursue nostalgia through this integration? he is on target. if i was young person, and i wish i was, the one thing i would pick up in the eu is the level of youth unemployment and decide on balance i might prefer something else. carolyn: i think it is about what's best for the next generation, what will create the best career path, prosperity, opportunities within the u.k., globally, that's what should be in the minds of all of us, even those of us over 30. norman: it is about what's best for the young people, and where are the opportunities. it is about where they are globally. europe has a feeling slow growth economy, would be better with the freedom to find new markets
in the world and take back control, politically, of our own affairs. maurice: i think that the british people are very inside and outside of europe. mistake, there a inside and they are part of the eu, they are outside because they have a lot of things they have elected to be outside like schengen in the eurozone. therefore, they are benefiting of the best of the two worlds, i would advise them to think what it is to leave one of the good worlds. francine: thank you for great discussion, thank you to our panelists and our audience. ♪
♪ emily: this is the "best of bloomberg west," where we bring you to the top interviews from the week in tech. one year after losing her lawsuit, allen is back. she has no regrets. plus, they get serious about you -- fox media gets serious about snapchat we will talk about the studio just for snapchat and where he thinks new media is headed.