tv Bloomberg Debate Bloomberg May 8, 2016 7:00am-8:01am EDT
francine: the implications of brexit, 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 eu. we have three who believe they should stay. we have mario monti, jon moulton, carolyn fairbairn, lord norman lamont, and maurice levy.
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. maurice: i feel compelled to give an opinion, i don't consider that making such a decision is only a u.k. decision. it has a lot of implication regarding the eu. i've been quite irritated that david cameron has decided to play with this fantastic, great 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. than eu. i believe that the u.k. has always been an open country. you could go 1000 years ago, it's always been open to the world. entrenching the u.k. is an island is a big mistake. >> my reason for wanting to leave it is because of what the president said right here. situatione president -- eu 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 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 and valuable for the future 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. we don't want to be a minor part of an economically crippling bureaucracy. we want free trade in europe, we want friendlier national
-- friendly international 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. mario: 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 benefits 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 policy, that can be played by no 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 it -- losing an opportunity to
be the real driver of the eu, and of europe, 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. i'm flying home tomorrow, or today. this is about the european union. and britain's relationship with it. the european union is clearly an 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. it's not an economic venture, so that's not all that surprising. it's a political venture, it always has been.
my old friend when i was chancellor that was always clear that this was a political movement. the five presidents report. the purposes of a political union, united states of europe. that is with the brexit is, is not something we wish to be part of. him him him 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. him and and is something which is an economic failure, we could do far better with the freedom outside the european union. francine: if you look at the geopolitical concerns in china or russia, are we not stronger politically is a block?
norman: you are right, we should look at the global picture. britain does. many european countries, know this very well from conversations i had when i 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. and that is what is important, looking both politically and economically. the europeans for the most part don't have that situation. francine: would the city of 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 excess regulation. potentially financial transaction. all of this stuff which actually the roads in the city's position. to a degree, it's economic warfare 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. a lot of these regulations? mario: no. francine: i'm asking mario monti, he was there. he has seen it. mario: i was there. i was there to eliminate many regulations. it is true there are too many regulations, 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 original proposal by the commission, the council, the parliament, then each member state -- the u.k., i'm afraid
in the very first place, at the moment of transposing -- here there are nostalgic spirits, which are very nice things. but i try to be complete. at the moment of transposing a directive into national legislation, there is -- flatly, protection is driven, business inspired perfectionism, which couple kids the directive more and more. -- complicates the directive more and more. may i come back for a second to a proposition that i, in principle, admire of lord lawson. the u.k. is indeed the country that has the greatest global perspective. but i think the word leadership slips into your language. i am 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 be disarmed if it were hemmed by a fairly small, highly distinguished, insular country. which, for example, in areas where the u.k. has deployed global leadership like the fight against climate change, like competition policy, and you imagine the deeply respected u.k. competition authority to do with the european commission, for all of its bureaucrats did, mainly to say to ge and honeywell eight years ago, no, 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 intervention was rolls-royce, i
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? again, with all due respect, out of london, and authority to block a merger that have an authorized 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. how do we know -- 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. the fact is that having 550 million consumers 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 president obama was making an important point about the fact that the world is increasingly trading in regional blocs. the idea of there being a 5-10 year uncertainty time 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 itls simultaneously and always has negotiated several deals simultaneously.
the idea that we deliberately 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 player, they are quite hopeless. they can agree on foreign policy -- they cannot agree on foreign policy questions. iraq,r it was with syria, the falcons. they cannot agree on foreign policy questions. the idea of the u.k. as a 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. ♪
♪ francine: the french politicians want to reform the eu. this is not that the u.k. wants to reform the eu and the rest of the europeans are fine with it the way it is. maurice: we should not believe the eu is perfect. it has a lot of drawbacks and other issues. we should address this, and clearly there's a lot of red tape, a lot of regulations and independent of making decisions from the political standpoint. it's not by getting out of the eu that you will be better 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. >> we do more trade with the european union than we do otherwise. 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 very good. as farce the british people are concerned, the democratic difference is very serious. this is with the regulars. there is far too much regulation and many of these meetings do not have anything to do with the trade. they are still burdened with this regulation. the national government also introduces regulations and get entangled with this. the difference is that we can get rid of that business regulation. that is what margaret thatcher's amendment did. one of the results of it is that the british economist are doing
far better. regulation where you are stuck. you cannot do anything about it. within theluence european union has declined considerably as a result of a be aion we took not to member. not to exchange fairly for the euro. everyone said we would be mad, we must go into the euro. we 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. what this means now is there is 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. we have much to lose with the eurozone caucus now, which has an infield qualified majority. the ability of the united
kingdom to influence decisions and 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. fortunately, we live in a relatively free-trading world. if we leave the european union, we can claim for membership. 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 do not want to be part of that project, mario monti would like to see a united states of europe. mario: no.
nigel: will 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. my lord spokesman. nigel: we don't want to be part of it. norman: it's widely believed by businessmen and 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.
and as nigel said, our trade with the eu has dropped 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 again, i can trade it very briefly. it has enabled them to trade more effectively with the rest of the world. under w-2, some of our most important industries, like the car industry which has 10% tariffs. norman: 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
really understand what the process of leaving a widow look like style 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. it's worth reading article 50. i mean, it is a frightening read because there are veto powers of everyone of those countries. norman: article 50 is not in the least frightening. thing aboutzing article 50, the process of withdrawal says that for two -- everythingars remains exactly as it is. everything is exactly the same. carolyn: the clock is ticking. norman: after two years, everything is the same. mario: it is difficult to call authoritative british citizens a bit of pragmatism, but i do. a democratic deficit, we know
our democratic systems throughout western democracies are in deep crisis. but, my lord, 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 parliament, with all due respect, is also a parliament. on the basis of written in the
oral examination, conducted in total transparency throughout your. also, pragmatism please. we can always renegotiate with the united states. let us not lose perspective. we all in the world have entered it a phase in which the appetite openness, trade liberalization, etc., has plummeted down and down. don't delude yourselves that 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.
nigel: it is the european union that has this protectionist attitude. this is one of the main reasons that president obama thinks it is in america's interest that we should stay. because we will be a liberalizing it influence within because the union americans are understandably concerned about protectionism in the united states a.m. to and be european union. and in the european union, there are also concerned about the degree of the anti-americanism, of which there is plenty and the european union. unless in france, for example. he wants us to try to reduce the significance of that. but that is america's decision. francine: that would mean that the u.k. is a stronger and more valuable trading partner for the u.s.. nigel: 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 is 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. what's democracy means as that if the people are up with the government, they can kick it out. which they have passed can be changed by the subsequent government. you cannot do that in the european union. you could not do that. it is not possible.
francine: i think he spoke about the house of lords. mario: 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. so that's can't happen in europe as well. the unitedying kingdom is not democratic, i am saying that i do not see much reason for the u.k. to take a high moral ground vis-a-vis the youngest, imperfect, but rather flourishing new form of democracy that is the only form of democracy in a constellation of states that is there in the world. 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. of course, they are composed just of bureaucrats. but they do not have any form of
democratic briefing. norman: 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. we all know what 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. there is not a european people in that sense. there is a french people, there is a british people, there is a german people, there is a swiss people. they speak different languages. a 28-countryve democracy. it simply cannot work.
we are getting more and more remote and more and more interventionist. maurice: i want to come back to the economical aspect, because i think that when you are speaking about leaving europe, you believe that things will stay as they are, as you mentioned. then things, and will go much better because you will be given a privacy. i think nothing could be more wrong than this assessment. because you are simply forgetting one single aspect, which is the anger of all of the european countries which will react. if you believe that it's a soft belly, that europe is really something which has very little strength and will not react. accept the consequences. norman: this democratic institution, the european union, will get angry that the people,
of one of its members, through a democratic election, decides to withdraw. very poor advertisement for the european union will stop maurice: is it fair and democratic that one of the 28th is allowed to ask its citizens, whereas the 27 of us alternativean: the to that is that europe is compelled to stay in the eu whether it's citizens want to or not. reason they are angry and nervous about this is because they know very well that if written withdraws, there is a risk that other countries will begin to think about it. cryonics --
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 his. because people will protect their own country, they will protect their own dismisses. there would be a fight to end it you cannot believe that people would accept simply that you are putting at risk europe. to benefitntinue from everything that europe has given to u.k. i think this would be wrong. carolyn: i 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. nigel: 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. [laughter] engine may also surprise you that most of the world is doing a lot better than most of the european union. jon: it will mess up the european union. the fear arguments are
interesting. we would do quite well if we didn't get any fresh trade agreements. there would be more impact on on europe if awol was put up then there would be in the united kingdom. they would lose more jobs in europe if there was a brick wall between here and the eu. francine: why do you say that? 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. we have a trade deficit with them. the magnitude of the total is , a terrible calculation. we would probably lose about 250,000-270,000 jobs in the u.k.. and the european union would lose. carolyn: out of 500 million people. jon: the reality is there people losing jobs. can i carry on for a second? please? 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 for us to be able to get some reasonably optional trade agreements in place? we came. we have never had to do it in a rush. two years is a long time. we could get serviceable agreements. we wouldn't get full agreements, the stuff the deal with levees. francine: would you get passports? jon: but again, passport thing isn't the be-all end-all. carolyn: very important. every institute i speak to, it is one of the main reasons for being here. jon: it's a benefit to existing large institutions to have regulation. to have standing large institutions with regulations.
it is not a benefit for the rest , and 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. a lot of that is fear there will be other referendums. they have not, for example, fixed the treaty with a brokerage over the european and britain bailouts. because they did not dare risk the national referendums. there is a fear amongst the ruling class in europe that there would be other referendums. of comingh the risk out? the balance of probabilities is the future. it is better out they had 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
remembers higher growth, but it also remembers huge deficit. which cost prices in unemployment at the time to the generations. this brought us too many bad things. thebecause it touched point, you and italy, i can in the area of ander balance anti-environment, antipollution education and many, many other things. consumer protection, it's only without the eu would now be 30 years backward. but man make an another point?
hadany conversations i have , i was then prime minister with david cameron on and also in the house of lords. the best part of which has joined us this morning. [laughter] mario: i made, i believe forcefully, the following case. the u.k. is more liberal oriented, more a lover of the single market, more liberal competition the and 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 pu were to tryt one and convince the u.k. to join the europe. a completelyt is
different story. what i said to my then-british if you start a, " proactiv crusade in europe by asking these single market to be really taken seriously with the same instruments of enforcement has,competition policy quick enforcement rather than taking three or four years for infringement procedure, finally to be able to remove an obstacle created by members state for a make tworket, if you to have aonditions more open and competitive brought single market including general,al services in you would put in great difficulty, france. in some difficulty, local
germany. not berlin, but the land closer. but you would have an enthusiastic reading of lines from northern europe, from central and eastern europe, and parts of southern europe, and you would be the winner of this transformation of the european union, exactly like the brits would like it to see. " this was not done. nifty-gritty of things that are not very serious it 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. training is actually for mutual cooperation. it is to everyone's advantage.
it is veryat difficult to negotiate trade deals, i do not accept. that it is any youssarily easier for that you just because of the size of the au. 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. if you 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.
you 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 and still is not ratified. the evidence is it takes a long time. in theory they are good over the 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. norman: your examples are eu trade deals. just because the au takes a long time does not mean it has to to take a long time. carolyn: the same is true with the tpp? norman: 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. we live and a world policed by
the world trade organization, i'm very pleased with that. you don't need trade deals. you go if anybody in this august , assembly, go shopping, you are probably a old far too busy. but if you do, you do not just see goods from the european union. you see goods from all over the world in shops. there are many more important things than trade deals. there is a regulatory problem that is a huge problem. is particularly crippling for small businesses which are not really represented by the cbi at all. carolyn: i'm shaking my head -- norman: the point that he is making is absolutely correct. there are countries outside the eu that sell more, and whose the auand net exports to
is growing faster than that of britain. carolyn: unless you get a worse deal if you get out of the eu. is not a physician. maurice: 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 european continents, even if you are an island, that we are now 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 which have been managed properly by europe. we have avoided wars. we have been building things together. i think that thinking solely about what u.k. can do and how the u.k. can build a better deal -- chile or singapore norman: it's not about trade. our position as we wish to be a self-governing democracy, and we are hugely connected. in ways that have nothing to do with the european union. london is the most international city in the world. that has nothing to do with the
european union. maurice: 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 europe, 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. ok, a long way up. from the united states. but, second place. have a seat on the security council of the united nations.
we have international connections greater the and any other european country. so to talk about us as an island, do we you are an island. european union to three mystery unfortunately, it's turned out rather closer to a nightmare. we wish our friends in france -- and also in italy, certainly, well. but we think they are on the wrong track. if they want to go along with that track, let them do so. but we wish to choose our own destiny. that is what it is 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. so well that much of its funds go to british universities and research centers. and i wonder what would our british friends make of a u.k. out of the eu in this respect. secondly, 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. can i venture to say that there 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 been unfair to select it would have been the language of a large member state. of course, ireland would pocket
♪ francine: becomes a referendum of what people should be thinking about. in 10 seconds. 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. but france has elite to run it. but i was very interested in a poll where is 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
-- 800 i feel comfortable in class leading me and my fellow u.k. citizens in the rather untested and perilous adventure of going against the wind at a time when countries are trying to combine rather than to pursue nostalgia through this integration? jon: 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 , especially those of us over 30-years-old. norman: it is about what's best for the young people, and where are the opportunities. it is about where they are globally. and europe is a sclerotic, 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 benefiting inside and outside of europe. they are making a mistake, there 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. ♪
carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. david: i am david gura. we are inside the magazine headquarters rates now in new york. what in new york. carol: right now, breaking the addiction to sugar. david: a cautionary tale to other unicorns. carol: and the powerful powerbroker behind donald trump. david: all of that and more, ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." carol: we are here with "bloomberg businessweek's" editor. there are is lots of great stuff in the magazine this week. in opening remarks you talk , about the bank of england and the personal experience with the