tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 13, 2016 12:00am-1:31am EDT
[inaudible] does five years in the year parliament before coming here. size very pro- e.u. which we really don't have time to talk about today. i wondered if you folks speaking of the day program today about his news on why we should stay in the e.u. it is also to be nothing less then political arson. unprecedented action of self-destruction. the challenger is about security
and there's only one way we can be sure having a secure future and that is working globally. he said the global, which we holding, is under threat. the need for mobile cooperation is greater than ever before. so the british question not only what we get out of the e.u. it's also what we need to shore up an international order work continue to ask dad perhaps the destruction. and i i like you to respond to that. >> is not surprising that i think we have virtual polar opposite view, i think that the european union is feeling. i think that we should not be shoring up the institution that
we have at the present time but are contributing. i look across europe and i see a generation of young people may be unemployed not least, exceed expenses far wider than the others with the failure to participate from the mass migration. i think if the european unit is to succeed there needs to be very fundamental reform. i think there's a major shock. i think a british exit might just provide a level of shock it requires. this cooperation, course we need to cooperate. we've always cooperated. the idea where we would leave the european union with the united security council and we still have the world bank, we still have members of the g20, the world's biggest offense, and were hardly going to be thrust
into darkness our ability to cooperate is huge. the point a make initially is a sticking point. i cannot cannot accept a supranational authority. i can accept supremacy of the project. i'm very happy to cooperate with any of our european partners and beyond where we have mutual interest. but i cannot accept having a law been subjugated to its own court. >> the five years i was on the unit. parliament things changed a great deal. we had directly elected, it's nothing we should discount of the european parliament, i think it is unfortunate most of the debates in the parliament on television very late at night. for some art superior of the
debates that take place and the role of the parliament has been strengthened like every elected group and members and they haven't achieved more powers and have greater powers than when they are directly elected. electors can remove them if there is an election. so what you think your view of the european parliament's? >> when we look at the agreement that seems to be the very agreement about the debate is predicated in this referendum. he said that if something that i would be hammered by the local bazaar. he said it was not binding legally. and that elements of it could be looked at the european parliament. that is a statement that in fact it can be. we are being asked to determine
our membership of the european union on the basis that we have a legal agreement and clearly the democratic elected european parliament is not agree. but things cannot be true. >> again, when we tell you when i was there we had great on the steel industry which is a particular at that time. what was evident was that many of the other european countries were great losses were taking place in steel, for example the war we have 5000 men losing their jobs and 5000 and had no jobs to go to. in the great criticism of this country then by the european commissioner, of social affairs was that we had not done for
change where other countries have planned for that change and had social policy to deal with the change, this country again under the conservative had not found that change. >> when if you look at germany 4.4 from that you average you get of it very much higher number. i think the problem with the european union is that its policies are largely -- and essentially then position of the single currency and the allowance of countries into that single currency are unsuited for has been a disaster. if i may, the reason i think it's social and potential political disaster is that when i see people visiting athens and young greeks wearing armbands that says to me they're not there to welcome the german taxpayer, but we we see it as austerity being imposed by
berlin on other european countries. memories are still raw and that i think plays in to a growing sense of tensions. my first memory of european union is of the referendum when i was 13 years old. and we campaigned on opposite sides. my father join, market because he said i do not want my children involved in a european war. i do i do not want the tension, the ethnic and national tension to reemerge. i think they are reemerging now because of -- and the fact that the leaders of europe our intent and following a blueprint set by the 1950s which is not relevant for the world around us today. i was at it meeting a few weeks before the last european elections and i said, at these european elections, all these democratic european parliament
about a third what they look like they either want to leave the european union or destroyed the european union, i said how would you deal with that? and the answer was well least two thirds are not they will continue in the same direction. that is my fear. those in charge are not listening, they're not seen these trends of unemployment and social stability and ethnic tensions. and the leaders of the european union are behaving as if nothing is happen. >> he said none of our allies, not canada, not u.s., the only is russia. that should tells tells all we need to know. >> yes i'd do agree with that but in any case we are here to do what is in britain's national
interest not other people's national interest. i think a particular look at what is me instead in the united states there's no shortage of american political opinion telling us that we ought to remain in the ion. an organization with no american politician would ever tolerate. all of our friends around the world some of them in particular the united states may be when they're opening the border with mexico and a body that stops congress been the ultimate authority for federal law that maybe we can take another look at it. >> thank you. your partner in crime so to speak talked a great deal about threats from russia, he talked about world war i and world war ii and the importance of this collective response to those threats, but of course he only
referred to nato once i think at the end of his speech. of course we we are remnants of nato, and as doctor fox member of the security council we are leading members of the ims, the g-7 and the g20. why is it that given our unique, particular role the world and our membership of all of these bodies, why do we need that extra and another pair. >> well i think they made a very fair point, the development in western europe, firstly the european community has had a significant role in keeping the peace. m peace among countries that have had a long time of history of fighting each other. we see that is a strong arguments for the european community at that time.
if you remember it was to protect the democratic structured against a threat, but another point was made about sovereignty to nato and in many ways is much greater with the concession of sovereignty to the european union. -- >> so the point that market makes it for comfortable with that huge extension of a sovereignty on the part of nato, is so uncomfortable with the modest concession of sovereignty or former affairs to the european union.
>> we all talked a little about her own experiences. i'm polish member of parliament, what is pushed me is the extraordinary -- of a country like polling, despite everything we have done for them over the many years, if you could see the entrance and that they had for negotiation perhaps you would be stunned. my argument is that this is not really a single entity of 28 countries. what it boils down to is each individual country is only interested in itself. they will work the system to maximize what they can get out of the system rather than this utopian relationship of all of us working together. i'm a give you an example. spain has stated that it will do everything possible to prevent
an independent scotland joining the european union because of course it does not want to get the green light to catalonia, how would you respond to that? >> one thing that's not a reasonable description of the statements of the government. the official statements were careful to point out the cases of catalonia and scotland, not not least of which of course work and directing a referendum that points to catalonia to make a decision. if we look at the legitimacy of the spanish government of course you have to use as the prime minister who went across and asked them to do so and it's out of habit that they seem -- i'm
not sure is the wisest thing to do it you will be more about what other people think of the decision is not in the best interest of this country. >> again, your partner in crime i remember when said it was the e.u. is never going to work properly. i remember writing down, down, he said the e.u. is never going to work properly, that's quite an astounding remark. >> let's talk about the european guilt without european governments. >> right, so he is against the e.u. but he said the e.u. is never went to work properly. i don't believe us there be a single government in europe, so the rational extension of that is that the e.u. is never going
to work properly. bearing in mind there's 17 countries using the euro and other countries like poland and others are obliged, is it wise for us to continue this project which they say is doomed to failure? >> will they have a practical veto against joining the e.u. because they have to forsake condition they have to have the exchange rate mechanism and that's why these other countries, not just the ones you mentioned but others much more prosperous are not in the e.u. in that sense and practical terms to join the e.u. in the case of the u.k. and denmark you cannot be compelled to join the e.u. >> in terms of the issue, you
and i,. >> i was hoping you would reveal that. >> you have spent a lifetime fighting for independence of scotland and being accountable directly to the scottish people. i have to tell you that there are real concerns going to a country like poland in a country that has lost its independence because of communism, they are really concerned of the increasing and domestic of the european union. one of the cases in point is what i could be making on the constitutional court and also
the polish governments determined that they should not accept the refugee quota that the european union is trying to opposing them because they simply think they can't cope with that. now with all your passion for independence and accountability to the people that you represent, how can you justify the fact that a sovereign nation, and a new sovereign nation with a government that is being democratically elected, by the way this is the first time that any party has a majority -- that they are seen this level of interference in their domestic affairs. >> as you pointed out there are thomas enough to try to block aspects of the negotiation of the prime minister. i want to make it clear of the friends i have in this place. [laughter]
>> a number of us have talked about the personal journey in my point of view on the european union. the most important argument i have to change my mind is who made a speech in glasgow in the 1990s and what she said was, up until 1973, island was an island behind an island, by joining the european we rediscover the european roots and their place in the world. that speaks, the effects of joining the european experiment has given more sovereignty less rather than less sovereignty. of course every country, every
single country in the european union are going to have frustrations, i was -- for 20 or more years, i know it frustration of european policy are like. for most people, the concept and most people have med would favor the view that would open up more possibilities and more practical delivery of influence and sovereignty. >> and for many people, everybody moans about it but not that many people want to abolish it. and that talks about more freedom, more ability to
>> will the comments that the prime minister of norway has said that an it would not work for the united kingdom,. >> will because norway with the largest economy and it doesn't have a permanent seat in the un it doesn't have a lot of things. i think you may have heard me talk about norway in a sense that if you were to do a blind test immigration you will probably find on many levels norway is more integrated. so my point is when you make this comparison you need to be very careful and we're talking about the three big countries and you have influence, i just want to set down a few very poor
things. one is a course countries in europe relate to each other and work together. but until the united kingdom joins the e.u. in 1973 countries had two models available to them. one economic corporation and the other was political integration. once you have political integration we could continue to protect the you could become integrated and not integrated and it would still work. not we have made it quite clear that with the euro for that to work it requires the european government and if the euro doesn't work you and i like to be around to find that out. so we have to find a model which is appropriate and the model the united kingdom will find will be different than norway. but it will be a different
model. >> on the, on the issue about integration and you mentioned earlier on partnership with nato, at the moment we have foreign affairs committee discussion form affairs issues. where do you see the difference line, thank you talk to nato why do you think it would be about nato but not the cooperation of the -- do not trust the government in terms of the administration. >> images to find some ground rules. there are bilateral relations in the european union relations, and just because we cannot put to member states of the european union cooperate very closely from the united kingdom, there are actual arrangements.
so nato is an alliance, voluntary alliance where countries have agreed, aspired to a level of spending but nato does not come back and say we're going to find you. because you not spending the 2%. if they did only three countries. once you have five you have to take the appropriate action. interestingly after the five was it invoked by nato and i was in the wake of 911. and in which we have not participated. but nato and european union are incredibly important in terms of having secured piece. it was the two together. >> partners in nato are very key, with the united states and
canada being very of these yes take. >> well and european partners. of course i'm not sure candidate in the united states would nastily be a good thing, i think it's a very good point. why do you think are nato partners want us to be a part of the european union which, why do you think they want us to stay? >> in 2003 i covered extensively it is quite interesting that in the run-up to the year before in
2003 park summit which could decide on the expansion of nato where poland would be a partner in the expansion of the e.u., talking to them and then actually a membership of nato was infinitely more important than the membership of the e.u. i think that his continued confusion when i think it explains with poland that quite a number of countries did not fully appreciate to begin with the integration there was actually required because it was a membership organization why do big businesses want to stay? because you have to both make a constitutional differentiation. you just like units where you
just have to make one phone call. but i also think democratic accountability is very important. >> on the member state issue of course none of those states are looking to leave the european union but that is -- talk again about accountability and he talked about when the government you stepped up to date for the prime minister, now are they no longer having these debates? >> no used to raise it regularly with the speaker on the leaders, until ice started becoming a questioner because i was getting told -- the reason why you mention it is that if i go back to the great achievements the
prime minister brought back, except the european union haven't shown any sign of itself was the increased power to national parliament. i first negotiated that years ago. so the prime minister and weakening the house of commons and has continued to do so in a way takes part in decision-making, he comes back and says -- >> we talk about the influence of the state, do you think the u.k. has member states, you have [inaudible] >> i think there's one. in british history my lifetime when he had a british government
and of course this also comes from europe and what benefits unquestionably. given it's unlikely another decade what do you think will happen to some of those advances as part of the european union in 20 or 30 years? >> it is undeniably true that the labour party in the mid-80s became from a highly skeptic party. tony blair became positive
towards it because they conditioned beliefs and the social europe and gave it the payment. that was years ago. you only have a social europe commission and a social europe parliament and the social europe counsel if you have a majority of government and your. now if you look at the current speakers you have 50% of the commission is epp and the council of ministers aligns with a blocking minority and the parliament the right-wing parliament 50% left-wing 38.9%. i think this is the most articulate and powerfulase for labor back home. >> you are well out of time.
mr. halloway who began his questions. >> thank you very much. how do you respond to the point about the u.s. urging they would accept themselves? >> first of all we are talking about the future of the european union. the united states is not exactly a vote to bowl the european union but each country, america is the world's soul superpower. is there country that has -- did i say someone described it as a superduper power and we are not in that league and we won't be in that league again so we have been nostalgic with the past. so is germany and so is france but we were told earlier it's not going to be blocked anymore.
i wasn't having about blogs. i was talking about china. united states, russia india each with half a billion or more population or thereabouts. so we are at 65 million so it is obviously the case united states will not go for a supranational union. we are at a different starting point. >> what is your response to that? >> i think it's a question of wanting to govern ourselves. i think right now the common thread is the reason united states would join something on your not because of mike simply want to maintain its concept of self-government and for me that's the same. i don't say there are no potential benefits that could accrue in size or con a scale of being in a larger grouping. it's just for me it's outweighed by the fact that there is the
supremacy of law that lies beyond our own borders. >> if i may your decision today is about britain. it's how we are most likely to have power or influence in the world not just about whether we govern ourselves another don't agree to national -- that we have a good argument that suggests we have more power are least as much by not being in the european union. >> i used to work with someone who thought it would be proper to trade influence. >> you are absolutely right. i think the interest of this country does mean from time to time we should be willing to say there's something more important. the important position as these prepared to accept less influence in the world less power in order to complete national -- that's entirely
logical position. it's not what the committees addressing. the committee is asking us to consider what our power be more or less if we leave the european union? >> i spent a week living undercover and i was astounded at the number of people. i left there thinking the syrian border now is basically at calleo. do you think -- yes 12? >> i don't think it is handle it well. i'm not suggesting, think the original mistaken this is a one of the reasons i did not support the united kingdom was it was obvious the external borders of the european union were not secure from any challenge. i don't pretend the particular challenge that is emerged but that is the problem.
no it is not handled it well but the problem itself even if we had 28 states who were not in the european union. the european union didn't exist. >> is it not the case that when these migrants received germany they made it possible to live in britain. >> it's impossible to get a chairman -- but whether they flood into britain depends first of all and whether they have jobs in germany and over the next 10 years those whom are not going to return to syria while i expect put down roots in one of the most prosperous countries in europe. that will be for individuals to decide. >> can i get an opportunity to make us all concerned? if we do leave what do you think it will look like for the country and the following year? do you think the europeans will
give us a hard time for doing so? >> they will give us our time doing so, no. the initial reaction will be one of anger frustration and irritation. we will then have to embark on a series of extremely difficult and complex negotiations not just with the european union but with every other country they in the ua -- e.u. which we would negotiate separately as an individual not being able to use the negotiations on our half behalf. there would be a whole series that of which do we know at the moment how they would work out. we could get agreements in the end but in a negotiation the secret of a negotiation is to get the most important things you want and not the things you don't mind much about. every other country will play the same criteria. we'll willie negotiate with the
european union base will say yes we want a single market i don't doubt that myself but they will determine the terms. one of the things they will insist on will be free movement of lover. you can't have a market without freely -- free movement of labor. with regards to migration and every other part of the world they have complete control that it moment. first of all free movement of labor in the e.u. which we still have if we were part of a single market and the european commission of human rights which has nothing that this committee is well aware nothing to do with the opinion in which we will still be part of. >> that brings up a point if we leave the e.u. will they still have freedom of movement?
>> the assumption that everything up in the air apart from the internal market and free movement of labor have to go together. no they don't. why are you assuming they are the same? the second thing is i hate hate hate -- keep hearing about control of our border. there are enormous number of people that we can't stop from coming in and the point about the -- he is right that german german -- is run differently. the significant increase of nationals followed by ukrainian nationals i.d. cards. there are a number of documents
which are going around their so this notion that it's all hunky dorian in control. >> in order to get relatively rapid arrangement like norway it will come of conditions one of which will be free movement of labor. that's going to take the circumstance that none of these arrangements are suitable. you know where we renegotiating not just the trade agreements with the european union but the individual trade agreements with the rest of the world. people exaggerate the difficulties of the negotiation and say nothing is changing. yes he could probably do that. >> to negotiate an arrangement where you say unilaterally we are going to negotiate our trading relationships on a
separate bases with each european country and the world to argue that can be done in a short period is to say the least least --. >> i'd like to get in one more question before my time. >> the process of british prime minister four months ago thought it was perfectly acceptable for the referendum and told us it would be a very strong country. if the british prime minister four months ago thought this was manageable. >> thank you. what would it look like for us if we both tuesday and? are we then opt for everything? >> we are not up for everything for several reasons. first of all we are no longer committed to a union and for
most people of britain the main concern about her membership is there an inevitable ratchet drying the united states and europe which we will not be able to resist. that is when my concern and i think the concern of many people in this country. that is no longer a risk because it has been expressly said that the united kingdom we will integrate new proposals into one and if you don't want to donate to. the to. secondly in foreign defense policy issues this committee is addressing today we don't even have the problem solved because there is no cure indeed. we can either be to what we don't like and they can do more than protect ourselves. we can ask to stop the whole of europe agreeing on a foreign-policy matter. that's art not influence and that we would give up if we left and given the success of the concessions the prime minister was able to get out of a lack of
never having -- the union do you think cameron will be the right person in the negotiations if we vote to leave? >> that is what is normally not as a hypothetical situation. >> good afternoon. i want to start by saying i'm not one of those who thinks that we left the european union or europe and we are going to end up week so i'm another believer of the project but i'm not a believer either that if we stay there somehow, sorry but me rephrase myself. if we left the outside world is going to be in paradise because
somehow we are free to be able to do things. i don't believe in their fear project either to say that somehow our freedom and our sovereignty will go away. a lot of constituents are generally confused as to how to both and for me the question is standing in the international community things like sovereignty and the security issues and we have not talked much about trade but wanted to come on to that as well. those who say we should leave is that we'll be free to have the
dash countries. that's -- the first thing i wanted to talk about is that in your opening statement i was a bit concerned because that's the kind of argument is being used by some people on the campaign and the rhetoric that donald trump has been saying about the usa suggesting that somehow in the european union somehow as migrants came in they would beat , security risk and causing mayhem and chaos. i find that argument is particularly offensive one. i would like to actually ask to what cases do you actually say that just because there's migration going on that somehow come into o'hare or germany or
anywhere else it will be causing mayhem and the threat to our country? >> it's certainly not what i intended but the point i would make is that the million plus migrants in germany from pakistan afghanistan iraq syria and others the general authorities knew exactly who these people are whether they are refugees or economic migrants or might be sympathetic to more extreme with a glenn religious views. one of them might be infiltration. he actually said that the area was an international passport for terrorist to execute attacks that they are not by words so
there are genuine concerns about security. my point is we wouldn't know and to get a huge number of people coming, we at the moment of course are admitting them under different policy. it takes 10 years to get the belgian passport but you can get a belgian passport in london for free. they have an absolute right to come here. the fact that we have no control over who comes. >> that would make sense for the issue that it's the european union or not. that's been in existence for many many years so could have come 10 or 20 years ago. why is that part of the argument because that's really an issue
because the issue of migration can arise at any time. why is it linked with the argument of the european union and? >> while there is movement in european citizens and the fm can come here and they can come at any time. we have this massive waive of migration that might potentially be that we don't know great deal about the millions of people who have flooded in recent times for that provides us with an extra risk as long as we have free movement in the european union. >> the free movement of people. surely that is an issue linked
with what you come out of europe. >> while we have free movement we have to allow people to come into the magic kingdom to settle. >> seeing migration is about this threat to a country which is specializing in the gration that is benefited countless countries where would english politics be without liam fox? >> coming into europe than being pushed out of countries by the consulate are in many regards i have seen talented skill than in many cases middle-class people if they decide to stay they will offer tremendous things to these countries.
when you present these arguments is constant negatives. >> i have argued from economic point of view you can argue that migration is a good thing but my argument is that should be our choice. let me give it a miss slightly different way. we have had one .164 million citizens over the last 10 years. that was a lot of pressure and extra pressure on housing. it's an extra pressure o people's access to the nhs. we may decide that it's good for us to have more or less migration to the country but all i'm saying is that it should be our choice. the fact that we don't have a choice in the matter which as i
said in my opening remarks having control of our law of our borders and our money. >> bats find the issue worthy of people come and work in this country not but what i'm trying to say some arguments not all, are for using the migration crisis which to be honest is worth making. suggesting somehow this migration we won't have all these migrants coming in as a security risk that argument in my opinion i'm sorry is not a very helpful or productive argument to have. if you want to talk about the fact they do want people coming in to labor that's it to finish it but trying to suggest people coming in will start killing
people that's not the right approach to take. >> i think it's a matter of opinion but i think it's irresponsible not to look up the full consequences and look at warnings about it. think the fact that they were trying to dismiss the risk wouldn't be responsible in taking the debate. >> to my second question about trade if we get into a negotiation over the last number of years there have been now a number of free trade agreements set up with the european union which directly and indirectly affect the united kingdom economy.
the question is do they say that somehow if there is the world by the european union what would you say to the fact that over the last number of years you are moving in a different direction than we can engage in trade with other countries at the same time we have benefited from both aspects of the european union? >> again argument is i can't disaggregate it things that might be of benefit to us. some of the things that i am opposed to the sovereignty. on the question of trade vaidya trade agreements get made? they get made because they are mutually beneficial. i think where is mutually beneficial for those countries you described to trade with the mac king to miss the united united kingdom was upset the european union that trade agreement, bout the same reason i agree with what robin said earlier. some of these arguments about
the dire consequences that they will gang up on us is simply not credible because the trade and balanced means they require free trade with britain potentially more than we require with them so when trade is mitch would beneficial agreements will come about. that's how the real world works and whether there is a supply and demand in the market they match one another. i'm not saying that we wouldn't have to work to potentially reestablish some of those relationships with the european union but i don't see it with vietnam pediments doing so. >> i'm going to have to move on to john. >> thank you everybody. something that tom said, would you agree --.
>> i would share my thoughts. do you agree there's a danger that -- talks broke down in this referendum debate. i don't think you meant to do it that you assumed countries are saying there's no way to compete on the international stage. russia has a smaller gdp and a smaller economy than the u.k.. at country as diverse as canada can have free trade agreements and very profitable agreements. are you really saying it will suffer? what is the danger that it talks britain down? >> i don't think that is totally justified.
particular if you are involved in international negotiations you have to be ambitious but you've also got to be realistic. the issue is not simply whether you at the end of the day get an agreement. of course to get agreements. depends on how many concessions were prepared to make in order to get that agreement and the question is what is your negotiation and? if you are negotiating 65 million with the european union which will still have 430 million and 27 separate countries including germany and france the idea that these are two negotiating i'm sorry that's not a room negotiation. >> there is no acceptance by that -- at hand of the free trade agreements. many diverse countries have very
possible trading relationships with the e.u. and there's a real danger. comparing this to russia --. >> if i may make the point i pay complement to the logic and consistency of what you just said because if i have not misunderstood to use you said let's forget about being part of a single market. you are quite right if it's simply free trade which we have with many countries around the world that's fine but don't tell the city of london. what we have at the moment are free goods and services. we have an open market. they can have her to share ways on an air flight from paris to berlin and the french can't stop us as they tried. you'll get just that.
>> i would say in response to that with got to look at the british economy. >> can i take you up on one or two issues? week could go defending another country but we know what our commitments are. given the fundamental difference is an open into possible sacrifices solvency. we have to gain support through 14 other countries before we can say no to a piece of unwanted tax directive for regulation. issuing the red carpet plan by which time the gain is probably --.
>> markham made the point that the nato alliance has joint operations, has joined forces in these making the point the foreign-policy foreign-policy agreement of his european union is much greater of sovereignty in nato and amplified that by pointing out the obligation to go to war to defend --. >> to your point that seems to be a -- to work. strikes me as a hugely important decision and we have to accept the relative consequences of that sacrifice of sovereignty. >> you and i have been on the same side on many dimensions.
we have argued many a point. when it comes to native you know what your commitment is. the difference with the e.u. is to accept possible loss of sovereignty. that is the fundamental difference. if you cannot say no or stop to unwanted taxes in nunn then that is why in many respects -- that's the fundamental difference. >> nato was formed from their explicit purpose of the soviet union invading western europe. after 1999 and started to move into different spheres of operation in kosovo the middle east and elsewhere. it's become quite different from
the original organization. your second i would argue essentially membership of the european union has composed of a member state that controls pushing the top 90% of this taxation. he don't control the customs union but you control the top of your taxation. think that's a powerful and relevant exercise of sovereignty for country with the european union. >> and i move on if you don't mind. do you accept there is one example in the world where you can have military -- and can you give me an example of? >> if i remember rightly egypt and syria.
>> the european union did not involve the skull union as i recall or a member. in the end it broke up. >> it's a reasonable example. there has been no long-term example and we accept that and i think they e.u. is not the exception to that law. so to come back to a previous point that we may not choose to belong to a union and they might extract those words the fact is economic law forces us down that road. why is it then given it -- will impose whether inside or outside
of the union will be forced to go down that road? why do you want to belong to an organization that has for example unemployment rates much higher than they are here. the youth unemployment rate is approaching 40 to 50% in some countries. why do you want to belong to that club? >> i have said publicly i don't have the highest regard for many the prime minister's renegotiation points. i think the point has been exaggerated but when it comes to being forcibly broken into the union i think the prime minister's arguments that countries cannot be forced for two reasons. one of the case of beato guaranteed a membership. it's not just a large country because of small countries the same thing.
we don't have the ability to object to the mechanism which is a voluntary decision. i see no enthusiasm for forcing them into that position. >> i'm not saying we would be competing but you will find that concern by civil servants in brussels that are position outside the euro is unsustainable. the e.u. will eventually be geared towards achieving single currency in political and economic fiscal union. let me ask one final point. >> the civil servants ideas book and give it believed the many euro. the practical reality is you can't bring them into the european countries. the. >> there are some issues with
the institutions themselves, we are moving on the conveyor belt ever closer. >> the vice president of the european union says something that could be taken as the whole event. that doesn't make the parliament for that matter. >> the final issue. when it comes to the referendum do you think there is a risk that the government is playing with fire in the sense that we are in favor of -- the more referendum seem to be unfair and therefore is not an issue that many of us hoped the referendum would. >> i stay away from generational
comments these days. there is a great argument that the government has an absolute right to move forward as the government. we did that in the scottish referendum to the summit. there was a scottish referendum putting out the opposite point of view. i think there's some explaining why there's a countervailing argument delivered as there was many others in the scottish -- official information was coming to people. i think you have legit art reasons. >> i reserve my time for my guest.
>> liam fox said the european union was right and welcomed the expansion to the central eastern european countries. presumably you agree with that in which case are you not, maybe i misunderstood. >> i think in terms of the enlargement process principally is right but it's not entirely right. >> would you accept that the u.k. leaving the european union might actually lead problems within the european union of those countries unlike us not in the single currency. is there a danger of the european union following off of
the u.k. leaves? >> come back to i thank and a country within the free european union that choice in how to relate to its neighbors or think there's a problem. you allow me to make a very important point. brussels which had accepted an institution of architecture that there forever will be some countries who are not part of europe which will not be the united kingdom you may be able to make that work. if it does to the -- which is really important because completing economic monetary union this vote is not about today. this boat is about five, 10, 15, 20 years ahead. had there have been any
recognition i would have had a bit of hope that the process towards deeper and you in other words the church doors are open but there's no possibility for -- and i think that's a problem. give it thing i've got a problem with this in those areas in eastern and central europe and you know this better than i do the council of europe has been really important because it managed to reach out to countries which were beyond the european union borders. managed to reach out in a way which was not always offering -- and i find it deeply deeply depressing that the ukraine deal ended up being voted down and actually creating tensions because we run out of options on how to reach out to countries and help them develop a democracy. >> can i take on that point?
clearly he did all he could to undermine ukraine's association with the european union and he previously succeeded with regard to armenia. that's the weakening of the european union by the u.k. withdrawal undermines the democratic pillar which ask assay data for countries away from a stored -- authoritarianism from the post-soviet era and twirl a stick modern european model and other arguments to why you would favor that position? and practice your position is seeking to undermine the democratic pole of attraction to authoritarianism. >> i share your concerns about this part of the world and last week i heard about the attacks. i had a cold shiver going down
my spine. what you are saying to me i find quite extraordinary. it says the only way these countries can develop is by ultimately aiming to be part of a supranational institution. stopping the deepening and widening there came a point when they would overstretch the institution. >> in which case are you opposed enlargement to the western falcons of the e.u.? carriers like kosovo we have got enormous problems of terrorism there.
i sadly would say they may have to make a decision on what the right thing is. >> whether macedonia, whether albania, whether serbia and kosovo have an aspiration that these of democratization and the pursuit of politics? >> mr. gaetz are making the assumption that you cannot become democratic and liberal in an aspiration to join the live bird --. >> i'm making the assumption that countries are european and european and aspiration should have a right to depart as the other states in yugoslavia like
slovenia have done very well in the european union are able to do so. >> i can't recall anything which would deny them that right. there are several member states to prefer the criterion deemed to be the best interests and they can apply and they would be accepted. >> moving onto the document that was sent to us which i miss sam had something to do with, don't know whether you did or not but it makes the case for some countries which are supported that everything would be very smooth and it quotes two prime ministers. one that discredited prime minister former prime minister of iceland to represent the country of about 300,000 people in the other the prime minister of new zealand which include terms is a rather small play.
given what we have just heard about the united states major countries like india and even china don't you recognize there is in reality an amazing ability for the u.k. leaving and the international climate afterwards not just our relations as neighbors but the complexities of our relationships with global countries will be difficult. >> i will make two observations. in my years with negotiations i've never come across anything that is quite as harmless as trade. either you like people you don't like them. there will be some people who drop their attentions who -- who will be displaced for a bit. the rest of the world just like
the united kingdom whoever selected that is the world. the second and that's a really important one -- important one. if the british prime minister has not called the referendum i would not have joined u.k. however he has called it. i'm asked to look at my experience in what i think is the best interests and the united kingdom is a once in a generation both and i have the conclusion that it's in our best long-term interest to now leave. >> what about the remarks i am at me today what they say they could cause severe reach of a global damage x. how do you respond to that? >> gets too full. yet again undermining or underestimating the united --
european union is a good point and there's a fair amount of the groupies sentiment among some world leaders of supporting each other. the other point is about -- there are moves that the european union should take. of course they would find it easier not to have the united kingdom there and just deal with the e.u.. they may have at it as an institutional interest as well. >> your document says the e.u. is attempting to silence are and the imf. you can't have it both ways, can you? >> i'm not supporting what the government positions have now become. the government has decided having called the referendum -- there's another interesting point.
sitting at the negotiating table and the e.u. negotiates on our behalf we are limited in our influence and power unless the e.u. actually does what we want them to do. they are making lots of noise legislatively and we can stop things but occasionally we have our own we can make things happen. >> final question the overseas -- clearly gibraltar made it clear is very concerned with the emboldened -- and wouldn't any longer have a voice to protect its dissenters within the european union. the question of the falkland islands and the european union has not taken positions collectively and that might change on the british withdraw. concerned about the impact? >> those of us old enough to
remember the falklands invasion the united kingdom successfully defended the falklands on its own. it has defended gibraltar on its own. i don't think within the e.u. or not to affect that. i think they deserve our protection they will continue to get it. >> thank you very much indeed. if i could just ask a question of the two former defense secretaries about the dilemma and the developments of the dimension within the european union. i had the joy of being in the hague out the parliamentary counsel and security and defense policy where we were invited to endorse conclusions as parliamentarians creating
operational headquarters for the european union military. 50 years of background of the european defense identity and the present of the commission wanting an introduction to the european army. at one level there's part of me that thinks it's a good idea if europeans that their defense act together. part of me trying to push a european union within nato and i found myself as the lone voice making clear that i was taking exception to the united kingdom and i would not agree to these conclusions unless they were within the berlin arrangements. this is a ratchet. the pressures constant to drop the ball.
the european union will be collecting, enough forces in the european union to want its own defense. if we wanted with that be a good thing and how do we get them to focus on nato rather than dealing with this unwelcome distraction and constant pushing for a european union defense plan? >> i think you have a very crucial point which i'm happy to respond to. the united kingdom has -- we are not alone greater number of others of individual countries that give priority to nato. >> the danes who were prepared to abstain