tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 4, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
to 2014, and studies estimate only about 13 percent of such incidents are even reported. furthermore, studies suggest furthermore, studies suggest the problem has grown worse as affirmative-action has become less available and as campus diversity has suffered as a result. in any event there is certainly an increased awareness. socialsocial media has facilitated constant and widespread communication about these experiences. consider the relatively well-known #dbu and movement were black students use twitter to describe the challenges they face on challenges to come on campus. this increased consciousness has to do the shifting understanding of harassment, discriminate opposition, and marginalization happen. we have a better sense now
of how even inadvertent micro aggressions can disrupt a student's learning experience. in 1987 we knew that the ku klux klan uniforms hung from a dormitory window of michigan was a racist act. just as in 2015 we knew that the new strong around the statue of james meredith at mississippi was a racist act. it turns out to be even deeper and more daunting than we understood. dynamics exclusive to racial issues. the most recent data regarding the number of sexual assaults. the concept of campus date rape was still relatively new. we have awe have a much broader understanding of the extent of victimization. we have engaged in a debate that has a deal pedagogically with the statistical reality that
almost certainly more than one of our students will still be suffering under the trauma of such an experience. we are serious conversations to get done. wimps, weaklings, whiners. political correctness, phrase that had not emerged since 1989. being as it is, people substitute for an argument. we have come a long way and it is to know where good. all too often no conversation can be conducted if this is shut down in the name of free speech.
offend someone. we're told we cannot even air the concern because freedom of speech stands in the way. the first amendment is now routinely used to avoid them. as you may have gathered, irony is a central theme. of course those on the other side of the issue of not serve the conversation well either. social media allows for the airing of grievances of all types. those who tweeted before they think, make themselves and the easy objects of parity and beat come in coherent co-conspirators. the impulse to silence people. when you think someone has a right to photograph your protest -- no right to photograph your protest your
confused. we think it gives you the right to physically block them from doing so your deeply confused. when you think it gives you the right to call for muscles intervene, you are dangerously confused. for a reaction there is an overreaction. we tend to think big problems call for bigger solutions. it's counterintuitive to think we could address the problem in another way. maybe you can see why i'm skeptical things will get better. both sides of the debate have settled in the framing, language, and concepts and appear to have become perversely comfortable. a highly efficient mechanism
exists for making troublingly comfortable people uncomfortable. it is uncomfortable. it is called freedom of speech. as i say, whichever side you are on, the other side doesn't get to use it. >> good afternoon. i am delighted to be here and appreciate the generous invitation to join you. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to be present. knowing you have to follow justice stevens is quite something to think about.
happy to be here. in my time today i thought what i would do is provide a a brief revisit station of some of the key us supreme court cases that are the drivers of the analytics probably observe issues. touch on those, develop core terms and talk about a specific case that illustrates the power of litigation in studentsand students who have decided to move forward. let's begin with the magna carta. as we know, considered to be symbolic speech in the outcome the standards that we all know so well. colliding with the right to vote.
that is an interesting question to be explored at another time. we know that that is the standard that is developed and tinkered. if we fast-forward to 1952, healy versus james. sought to establish students for a democratic society which somewhat controversial that have been suggested to incite violence on college campuses. the administration grew concerned and denied it on that basis. the supreme court concluded that just because an idea is unpalatable doesn't mean they cannot be retreated. that does not enter into the end of the first amendment. that is our 2nd speech ruling. there is no room for the view that because of the
knowledge needs of work first amendment protection shall apply with less force on college campuses and in the community at large. part -- quite to the contrary visual projection of constitutional freedoms is in no way more violent than in the community of american schools, college classrooms and the surrounding environment is the marketplace of ideas. group of students the room and a religious organization requesting the use of facilities like it college campus. out of fear the request is denied.
the form have been created. the form is there. equally and not discriminated against on the basis of the content. then we fast-forward to 1995 we discussed this briefly with justice stevens. another case involving a religious request wide-awake publications. for fear of running afoul of the establishment takes the position this group was discriminated against narrowly on the basis of
their view peemack. the difference within content and viewpoint was always a question, and they are quite certainly related, in this room in this form we can talk about anything other is to be discussed come about we cannot talk about -- a content discussion. however, in this form we can discuss football and so the ends of the earth, but we cannot discuss the university of miami football. that is a view point restriction. as we move forward i might mention one more case, further narrowing the viewpoint in a case involving students who object to pay. these are medications that
developed the terms. constance, view point's. these are the elements of the analysis to litigation that make the decision to litigate. a group of students who were antiabortion, student roles lots of slower gap which was in essence of graphic photographs on the way to bring light to the conflicts on this particular campus public institution.
originally they sought to place this in the middle of campus and academic area. manufacturing two ways, a larger size. in any case the facilities are respected. the common theory that includes a student center and a number of residence halls which are seeing pretty high foot traffic. but then there is concern there about foot traffic so they were moved to a 3rd locationa 3rd location where there was considerably less foot traffic. they displayed and then later pressed to have another display that they want to go back.
this was denied again, and they did not proceed. they also requested security , but that did not ever really emerge. so, the fourth circuit, and in hearing's case -- let me start that. the students file suit, the first amendment violation that caused concern administrative and the institutions have a place that would be a disaster, prohibiting speech. and you can tell. so when the student group filed suit in order to address the university
change that policy and rewrote it. that is one element. policy. the institution realizes perhaps the languages on the bad side. a listers involved in this case for branded, horrified. the fourth circuit did conclude students were discriminated against on the basis of conduct -- content of the speech. so this leads to many different ways the students can speak on college campus, andcampus, and if you think about it, they are myriad, classes, curriculum, athletics, theater, newspapers. the list goes on and on down
the student organizations and presentations. this is an incredibly important topic and one for which higher education must be mindful because it is not going away. the proliferation of litigation consuming free-speech rights related to students and others in college campus continues to grow because there are so many gray areas. i going to say the word social media causes mention it because that is a brand-new gray area. we are not sure where we are going with that. discussed social media issues because they are fascinating, and it is something that those of us who are part of the college and university community should be watching. enjoy the rest of our session together. thank you.
[applause] >> thank you for having me tonight. the foundation for individual rights on education was founded over 16 years ago, and since that may have seen significant victories for free speech on campus, though we have also seen some unbelievable new threats to free speech. the first amendment protects an incredibly broad range of speech, the vast majority is clearly protected by the first amendment, but no matter how clear the law is, free-speech and practice requires constant vigilance and defense and proactive measures.
with respect to free speech on campus there will always be a good news bad news situation. youtalk about some of the good news is saw the bad news. for most of the fires existence any written policies protected from government punishment if it occurred off campus. public schools are bound by the first amendment, and private school private colleges they will have freedom of speech, and keeping track of speech codes is one way that we can quantify the danger to freedom of expression on these college campuses. and in recent years we have seen many administrators
revive speech codes of the free-speech is better protected. we have seen the number of extremely restrictive policies go down in the number with no restrictive policies go up. and we really like making progress this way because it can be faster and free. .-ellipsis in short administrators understand why the changes they are making are so important. unfortunately, though, not all administrators want to work with free-speech advocates. and a lot of them will even refused to back down after we publicly call them out on obvious free-speech violations. a few years ago a fire watch the standard for speech
litigation project. some of the facts of these cases are just bewildering. several cases revolve around students being told they could not simply hand out literature quietly and peacefully in the open area of campus on public college campuses, and these are things like advocating for animal rights of petitioning against nsa spying or even handing out copies of the constitution, and they were told they could not do these things because they were not in the so-called free-speech zone or had not gotten permission from the administrators in advance. this is one example, the junior college campus. the red circle is where a student was standing in the orange circle is the tiny area on campus he is allowed to hand out literature in. that is one example. this is a common scenario of
how bad it gets on college campuses. students and professors should not have to sue in order to enjoy their first amendment rights, but out of the eight cases through this project that have been resolved so far, they have all been resolved in favor of speak to five free-speech and mostly settled before they even got to court. some administrators are slowly learning that it is less costly and takes less time to simply abide by the first amendment and set of digging in their heels. even though administrators at some schools are slowly finally getting a handle on first amendment law, there are some very serious dangers to free expression, and i will talk about two of them today.
the ocr is part of the department of education, and it is the agency responsible for and hope -- enforcing title ix which prohibits sex discrimination. for colleges it is all but about four colleges nationwide because most receive federal grants of some sort. now, i also want to say as a note that, if a school of those violate ix they can have funding taken away, and even though it has not happened yet, the threat is enough to keep schools under the thumb of ocr. and this is the 1st threat that i'm going to talk about, what my colleagues and i call the blueprint. the university the university of montana entered into a resolution agreement with the department of education and injustice, and this included those departments investigations in the university for allegedly mishandling allegations of
sexual assault. and even though the investigation focused on assault, the findings letter that came along with the agreement also dictated how the university was supposed to define sexual harassment. the letter also said that it should serve as a blueprinta blueprint for colleges and universities across the country dealing with these issues. according to the letter, sexual harassment should be defined as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, and conduct includes verbal conduct her speech. so any unwelcome conduct or speech of a sexual nature. now, when you look at this definition, i want you to think about whether you have ever told an offhand, racy joke or talked about 50 shades of gray lunch, or maybe even just discuss the facts of the supreme court case lawrence versus texas which dealt with sodomy?
if someone on campus, anyone overhears you and maybe is offended or just doesn't want to hear you talk about those things, that makes your speech sexual harassment. we know how different everyone's opinions are, so it is not unlikely that someone will be offended by what you're saying. i know it sounds extreme to call your sexual harass her in that context, but look at this definition, any unwelcome conduct of sexual nature. there is just no limiting factor at all. that is why it poses such a serious threat to free speech and why it is unconstitutional. we can compare that definition to the definition of student on student harassment that we get from the supreme court in the 1999 case davis versus monroe county board of education. the supreme court defines sexual harassment is conduct
that is so severe, pervasive command offensive that it blocks access to the educational opportunity are benefit. none of that comes close to being so objectively bad that they will keep student from receiving his or her education. and so they are all constitutionally protected, but i think that illustrates the huge difference between the supreme court definition of sexual harassment than the one trying to be processed. some of you might be thinking, well, surely a school were not actually enforce the definition of broad, but they are. it is happening across the country since the blueprint was published in 2013 schools have been adopting this incredibly broad definition word for word. they are enforcing it.
a lot of times it is speech that plays a valuable part. a tenured education professor got fired for occasional profanity in class. right now as part of the standard she is suing lsu. what happened with that, she is teaching future teachers and wants to prepare students to deal with all sorts of different kinds of parents they might encounter which includes those who might say potentially objectionable things. she used the word pussy a couple of times, and the school fired her saying that this creates a hostile environment that amounts to sexual harassment, and unsurprisingly the definition of lsu this is
what happens when you have incredibly broad speech codes less like this. this prompted an investigation for the office of civil rights. the question kept coming up, could umw band you check and a lot of schools have already tried to ban new jack. ocr by investigating in this case is basically giving schools another reason to try to ban all forms like
anonymous social media. i want to point out two important things to remember. the 1st is that some people were concerned about threats being posted. and threats and harassment properly defined our already prohibited by law. you have seen cases where threat was posted and the representatives worked with the fbi in school to find the poster and have him arrested. the other important thing to remember is that purples -- hurtful speech, even speech that could be called hate speech is almost always protected by the first amendment the supreme court has reiterated time and time again offensive and provocative speech is a critically important part of public discourse. it should be clear that
there -- banning you? at a public school really does not serve any lawful purpose. thankfully the umw president seems to understand this. denied the university wrongdoing but said -- let me read it. he said, as a public university, umw is obligated to comply with all federal laws, not just title ix. banning it is tantamount to a content -based prohibition. you can send that to the complaints. these comments from the university president constitute retaliation. ..
>> if i will throw out a couple of questions to the panel you can answer either or neither as is often the case. [laughter] more specifically on the hate speech codes. with the clash between liberty in the quality i field guide heard the risk of the speech codes will risk losing valuable viewpoints and down the other hand with the lack of the speech codes will have equal speech and equal opportunity.
does anybody have any empirical evidence. that is my first question. the second is with the free speech doctrine actually tromps on the speech even when what they say it is otherwise protected speech. i have two things in particular in mind. i have the doctrine that in certain locations, such as the home you have the right not to be bothered by a sense a speech. in the second to is the
workplace with harassing speech rand it can be just speech that creates a high style work environment can be made legal even though it's says from the workplace context event with that equal opportunity to participate in the workplace. so with him and free speech and jurisprudence and how they might apply on campus and that is the workplace so how would you take these doctrines might play out in the discussion of the speech codes?
>> i will address the difference between the workplace and the university because it is true there are different standards for harassment in the workplace but there is very important reasons and for the workplace they have a specific goal one it is usually singular. with the university deadbolt is discussion and debate it makes sense to air on this side of your speech in that situation where it is part that they usually go to work to produce something for a
specific output. so what makes practical sense for sexual harassment so as far as the home we key in keep people out but it deals mostly with situations with their own speech limited in those situations with the areas of campus. >> i would revisit question in number one of the empirical data and i am not aware of that but that is a good point that we should
pursue a more empirical studies in that regard. that is my position. are you aware of any empirical? >> to be honest a lot of the case is that we deal with that someone's access to their education are so very clearly divided. >> with a couple of thoughts that hate speech is not a category recognized by the supreme court of the united states. so actually you i suggest we don't know what we are talking about. so perhaps to define and harassment could be hate speech in those are
recognized categories at least in some cases by the supreme court of the united states so that is a tricky i don't think when we think about threats we need to see that empirical evidence before we concluded with the high style worked environment to do their job when and surrounded by recent speech is that the capital with convenience i entitled to business solutions and how we would conduct ourselves and we are able to have those conversations to think they
will turn into prohibitionist. with your captive audience point i have seen some interesting permits -- permutations of this. food gratuitously used profanity going into stories of his own sexual exploits. and the student who listened to this. and it was what he felt like doing. the school took action with respect to that and there you have a captive audience. when one student turned in an assignment that they fantasized about the instructor in devastated do that they would have the papers you have a captive audience the other direction
so that gives us a rich to a complicated context. >> we will open to questions and now. >> we appreciate from hearing from you. in those two half to free speech he mentioned the second area but the way as i see this with the administration that its worried about their brand or giving a negative view point of the national spotlight. and the students that disagree and for those
protesters that are going on. so how do we continue to go forward is that of a trend that is just recent -- recent but the administration decisions and policy development to provide that efficiency of operation to make the institution. and that is where though little -- litigation comes from. it isn't always that it
comes from my perspective that is malicious. it is intended to do a good thing but written in such a way to make it unconstitutional. the third factor coverall of the eagles of free speech sounds that is what we will talk about. that is one perspective to find the balance is key but it is not always easy and we will demonstrate it is not always easy. >> especially when we see censorship is to try to remind everyone of the reason why for go and explain to a people that you try to censer other people right now take of whatever rules you they doubt will be used against you eventually.
that is a fact of life. the censorship goes in every direction no matter your viewpoint i could find a case with someone with that viewpoint bitterly on any topic discussed and college campuses of what has been censored. i reminded people to flip the situation or how old they would deal with that and dealing with students. >> i am troubled by the question. so i will succumb to that. so educators are good at teaching and both educators and students are bad to serve as regulatory agencies so where i see the hope is
that the educational process there is something inconsistent about trying to regulate speech in the interest but there is about the value of free expression so light is the central is we can talk about those things to have those conversations and sandy labels and the ways to dismiss that that is destructive. >> i am not a big fan of the ocr document but that is is a reason i am troubled by
your presentation that they are expressing the sexual harassment law because you seem to be completing per what constitutes that but more importantly the requirement that i don't take it is true as a matter of law that something unwanted in nature but sexual harassment is a legal term to begin both actionable with universities that means if one student shows up in black face that is not racial harassment as far as i am concerned and that difference is important with the employment context
but also finance the free-speech and i teach a class of sexual crimes and drive the while black and i use profanity. but for us because of the simplistic view but it ignores the has patterns in your chain so i am pretty pointed but i do think that among the allied of the educators that it has never been a portrayed conflict because sexual harassment law is hard for plaintiffs
because they cannot show that institution a deliberately turn a blind eye. so that supplication is repeated. >> that is a good question. a huge part of the problem with 0cr over time with different definitions and of sexual harassment so there are documents that have vague definition of sexual harassment that is much closer to the davis standard with much fewer first amendment problems then they do use that language. however the problem occurs
and will be overly a cautious because they don't want to be investigated by ocr. so that they would start investigating them if they don't have a of broader definition. nyse colleges across the country in force of broad definition and that i had from my power point presentation. they are not all read the davis that we just told montana to have this stuff they don't speak about a nice that way they see montana and think they will get in trouble so they do that and regardless of whether the policies that they need to adopt or to comply with title ix if the
school has those policies in place and they are enforcing them then students are punished for constitutionally protected expression so a the moral is a talent is 100 percent clear with the of all then schools will do a big seller and constitutional. >> day eupepsia league between the increase of the school's efforts to limit speech to the opposite trend of the general population did in terms of hurtful speech to be far more common
than in dorsiferous nowadays ? >> let the quibble with the premise of the question. for those at say how do we restrict speech today but i don't take that did -- that is the enterprise but there are problems in though world coming onto the campus to disrupt the experience as they are concerned and how do we respond to that? that is constitutionally appropriate? i don't take the increase is a desire to restrict speech but to respond to an increasingly challenging campus environments.
you can watch rapid after ferguson the way the events change conversations on campus. and to lead to sensitivities about issues that had not existed in quite the same way two days before ferguson happened. you are exactly right there is a link what is happening off-campus and on campus but it drives a desire to restrict speech it drives said desire how to respond appropriately to the extraordinarily complicated world. >> i will wholeheartedly agree actually useful life under. as i mentioned earlier there real goal for the minister souders not to planned to restrict speech but balances
the way that it protects rates and allows institutions to operate efficiently as possible. so it is a difficult balance >> one of the questions from the up moderator was the workplace doctored would shake out of that college campus. so in in that context to. sharing of ideas and the reality is most will get the job trading that they need so does that change your analysis? >> i feet if your goal is to learn certain skills than there are private schools you can go to because they can enact speech codes as
long as they are up front but they don't promise free speech and deliver something else but there are universities where you can go to help you fill your goal to not hear ideas he had just learned skills. but i would say that idea of a university is at odds with what the supreme court has said again and again of the purpose of the university but also that the vast majority of colleges, even private, advertise themselves as places where everyone will hear your ideas on different topics. we can agree to disagree on the purpose of universities but schools at the very least advertise themselves as whenever they are. the vast majority of college
is to hear do ideas -- new ideas. >> susan i am of a little confused why we want to protect that speech that you can't post anonymously to say anything? i had a bad experience with that in college a was a did a sorority but those were constantly being talked bad about and it did affect the way we all saw each other on campus. why do you think that needs to be protected? >> that is a good question. it is a that we particularly liked the speech that is happening and when my colleagues and i see these cases we tried to make a value judgment. but the problem is that he
start sensory in tire forms of expression even if we differentiate between her to one person or another, then we will lose a wide range of speech rand that could be helpful propelled famous have been published anonymously that have been incredibly important for the founding of the country to set up the government history would have been so different if people didn't have the ability to speak anonymously. it can be used to make double states where necessary and there is no way to separate those of a forum like this. again, if there are true threats or harassment that rises to that level then
there are theories that can be done like the first amendment law but when it comes to speech or idea is that you disagree with the free speech advocates say the solution is more speech. so we encourage people to speak out and explain why you disagree or why people are wrong and it doesn't always get the results that you want but the alternative is shutting down too much speech that could help society. >>. >> thanks again for calgary
with the idea of the marketplace of ideas is important but for all of the panelist shed all views be protected the baby that just is a worthy i would like to hear. >> i think it is very dangerous to go down that road because they believe there are viewpoints that most of the rube could agree but historically people felt the same way about black people monday slaves there have been so many historically that seem completely of the acceptable
at the tide but it is also a possible to set up a system whether someone makes a distinction will be right. i would not trusted the person on the earth to have bad acceptability point where will they come down on red gay-rights? so we go not to trust people to make that distinction and. >> and this the of which i
differ greatly. that justin period it's me i about to go off the road listening to this i don't agree with this and they don't appreciate it but i do appreciate the person's right to have that. that is how i would respond. son period batf is that you disagree with cancer sub purposes. you'll understand the person's point of view better and can argue against them. and the other saying he is honestly and that is a fact
>> earlier today that a british producer david kindred told the parliamentary committee the better choice was to stay in the reform european union. they will vote to decide and also answered questions how this could increase trade relations is an hour and half. >> additionally reluctant we're glad that you changed your mind. [laughter] we're always pleased to see you.i but i do value that we do
have the referendum coming.spee. but what you said from your speech that if we can reach an agreement that we have if brt negotiated and we will have to think again if the european union with that package and that is what i was trying to avoid.ings that nt and get the feeling is that he to be addressed. at at that negotiation. >> buyback scheme in that absence?
>> i have never argued i spent my pod local life arguing and as prime minister i am not saying that what we have achieved it does is all love britain's problems with europe. that was a successful debut she should but if this organization and had one of those leading members so it is this really an organization from those proposals? >> i just read what did you read by that? >> in my career i have not a
argued. >> is a hypothetical question. >> it isn't. >> with that current e.u. that hypothetical questioneal we don't know how that works so with the current arrangements that we should wogue that you should leave? >> if we don't have that renegotiation my plate is you never wanted the british people to answer thathould question if you are asking eaglet is the view?
>> i have not asked that. what i am trying to do is illicit the decision to vote yes or go with the referendum. >> i seek some people will say stay and others will say they can't negotiate if they want to leave.mr. ca >> what would you like? >> i will vote tuesday in a reformed for european union. >> we are in the current he you so should restated matt? >> that is the question. >> i don't know where you iere going with this.
but then i said we should not join that siegel currency for my whole political life i have tended to favor two stating get the reform. but we argue from the standing start and on that basis i recommend that we stay. >> those that are asking questions but what we want to know is the importance and i have been asked you several minutes to give to that question. >>. >> edits an additional reason to stay with that
the institutions so yes isee an agreement but they cannot be described that the data sharing the irish has been made very clear but no one including the council has the changes of the government or what it clearly shows. packag 7% said they did not a the 23 percent said they did. vote. saddam would be a historic
is irreversible in practice how fundamental is the f change?he union because that reinforces the status that we have and i think this change with respect to not be discriminated againstthe because the e.u. today is the editor of countries and for the first time we have up proper legal basis to bed to the fact we are cutting though welfare payments so i fundamentally disagree with
you.s going to be said that is though whole issue but a duty battery negotiations and was successful. >> but the question to be clear but actually to make it absolutely clear from those proposals so what you say from the european from the 23rd of june. >> you cannot predict prime minister there would be anyyou decision you cannot say
there alchemists from the current situation. >> with the attorney-general that is not correct and the legal advisor of the renegotiation of package is under international law.argu >> so i say let's not argue if you want to leave the e.u. then you have a referendum. there are big savings to talk about.each other but accuse each other a false perspectives in the
have worked so then pretended somehow what we have does not work. >> looking at the budget management to see how much goes back what about the money that should not beck going? >> we need to do better that the way the systems are established from the way that was set up. >> so it will get worse before it gets better? >> why do we have these rules to make sure all countries bad idea properly
but i totally except we need to be better than it is spent effectively i completely agree with that.at >> with one of the concerns air that we share that important data that is vital had you thought about that confidence? aboes. talking about how i have pretty clear view over the last 15 or 20 years that wide area that it will change my opinion is the partnership with america
america, that is how we deliver security. there is no doubt it abided has changed. but now doubt with the records or they're criminal records or data that terrorist information and those things are incredibly powerful to protect ourft security. now what would we do if we left? sam are very difficult to get back into. you can so theoretically you could negotiate and it would take a little time probably face the great danger in terms of terrorism but then you would
have not have as good of the influence and then to come back and so that is the safer part of the strugglers safer but that is very important but if you listen to the intelligence chief of how valuable it is ed that we thought very hard to get that done added to the these arrangements. >> i would agree with you on that. you have chosen to put the case security at such risk rather than the national security of this country.
>> the issue of the referendum is where we made the choice this has changed quite a lot. should not be it is a wise support and toma make the arguments about safety in fighting terrorism and crime to strongly argue. >> but it is a huge risk if we leave. so let me move on so watching very closely with the greater transparency to tap dance concert with those l european carter's.
so would you try to influence that agenda? >> people have argued the effect that there is a role we should do as much as they can on a global basis. >> you are talking about the e.u.? >> so again this is a target you can make so there are a thing is that we need to change share there are frustrations.t to achieve that n it is for something we want to achieve otherwise these discussions would be go rigo on.transparency, this i and it is better britishs
driven initiative the sanctions against russia and raising money which it is a totally british led initiative. >>. >> but i think it would be more difficult it is hard to make progress. >> weber said your party and of your cabinet are held back by that membership.nt here why? >> i think the argument is do we have said trade deals faster inside or outside the e.u.? i seek the evidence is we find a better trade deals
because we have an agenda. >> weld is the evidence of that? p that we make a huge progress to the initiatives with the summit from murdered ireland. and that it would be easy i don't think that stands up to scrutiny.ferent blocks. which have said dad from the british point to the you the trade deals need to be good trade deals to be service is
based is much more difficult to wrap access to services than a super grievant. >>. >> you don't they have more favorable terms? specifically from power of the economy added to the global markets. >> if we left we would have to try. >> but first we have to work out the relationship with the e.u. because the exports go to the e.u. they are our most important markets. what is that arrangement going to be? so they will have the dealan
so that you are accepting the movement of the people you have to say of those rules or regulations so therefore if you don't dol for . that that is the good deal for canada and it would be quite difficult to work out that agreement to sort out the deal as we think that the same time. but this is not been thought through sufficiently. >> but what aboutnorway and swiz switzerland? to be very successful
without work for us? >> they have the same problem that day came to the e.u. surrenders to those are the objectives so they have now say so for eight country like britain do we really want our trading relationships the most important trading partner that we have? somebody that has no say over the rules. there is a much worse deal than we have now. which is why i think that argument that they start to talk about canada.usands of milw for that is thousands of miles away because it
doesn't have access to services were too far rigi for food. it has taken seven years to achieve. through how that is why they have done sufficiently thought through the strait derangements.about -- r reached its. that is why talking about migration end monday. but that does not work. >> those that are voting to remain is it back to business as usual?
but do we think that is a bottle to imitate those relations that ukraine has with the european union. >> so we should deliver that special status that we have. so i say put that renegotiation alongside to demonstrate i'm not arguing for german or french membership. of those institutions that we care about to have this goal its european history so that it reflects that to get
that on the inside. >> eight economists had enjoyed this campaign so how does that stack up that his salary would be lost by the european union? and with of widespread agreement. >> i am sure the committeeth will examine all of these e from the date of the glendora the imf and other organizations but when you look at the economics they
make some fairly of assumptions and they didn't seem to mind that the arguments are made from the treasury was quiteit straightforward was the benefit of our economy to trade with europe and the other countries you have trade deals with. so if there is something more restrictive you will suffer economically. we would need 66 to see what we are leaving not just
because we're out of the seagram market so do we have that capacity do you figure it will take some time? >> to be 60% to 83%.l be covere so a huge% to read be covered by these deals but the difficulty will be of those agreements with the e.u. but until your trading partners now what day are. and that will take some time
with the seven years and still not in place. when they talk about swapping and the purchase a patient in the market is the terrible replacement. so these are very real consequences. >> so we're in the european union plague that leadership role across europe with our allies to be quite successful and to be in the market and other individuals.t real significant c
so we can bring about real and significant change so if we do decide to remain in the? >> i would highlight a couple of things.when inter there is a recognition witted to straights just as he rode that one of the best things you can do so that british agenda will say why that part of the renegotiation had widespread support so in that very much leads of that issue. is true in has led to ruth british frustration. >> there are other areas, we
>> we know that. but the bottom line is 70 percent of the beef. >> quickly the interest. >> i will make two quick points.to them. and 44 percent of the re-export than the secondce of se point is the importance of the freddie joe services. a few loose -- freddie agile services. a unit is he'll lose the other day sought -- they said we would lose 100,000
jobs you lose that aspect of anti-a goal -- a goal but if you take that. to leave the relationship to negotiate with the rest of the world than economically it is much worse. >> anticipated the exaggeration. >> so let me ask you. of the spl outside of the special circumstances, is given to a fancy or protecting?eg >> i thought of special circumstances.
>> i could probably write to you maybe 10 or 50 at best? >> that is a very good question and.a certain amount there is a certain amount of the emergencies.%. and to establish at 15%try, som sometimes to do that more than once. >> how often are you thinking? >> probably determined chiseler the b3 weeks? and i would tour to the french and german and italian private sisters and
interest to me it does seem sobriquet to be discriminated against with the euro.we but the first thing that would happen with special status because we're in there then they can dictate that it only has to be cleared for the rows of the country and we go we are the great credentials center. >> and i have given you notice with the government's intentions that their blood
>> and the terms of fundamental rights from any court or tribunal. with the united kingdom or fundamental rights. we oppose the lisbon treaty. itt also to have a referendum on the treaty.nd and stand and deliver. >> and coming from national security.public authorities that legislation and have access with communicationsmental that the e.u. chards ofht fundamental rights.transatl
the dead she described this as disappointing. so that agreement is part of the british ships. >> but as you think about it tuesday to britain will be stronger and whether we are confirmed t. isis or putin or attacking terrorism. will be st brigid will be stronger and a safer. and with commercial data. and with that renegotiation of daschle security and with that national responsibility. us.
and to create a safer world for all the ashab -- all of us. >> but for those candidates who support that that insures that majority of the scottish people do not believe but to be the statena of the european? >> i would challenge your statistics. looking at that opinion to support the referendum there was remarkably little. people wo to save the all the way to
it would have had -- scotland would have had a difficult time getting backre in. in >> in your view. >> not just my view, use of people like this pass prime minister, the head of commission and also, it would have to join the single currency, the shade of england because it would not have the special status that we as the united kingdom have within the eu. the 2nd part of the question is what about the future. this is the united kingdom's decision. except the result, whatever it is. of course -- >> well,well, you will make your argument in your owned way. >> i would argue to anyone in the united kingdom