tv Heritage Foundation Hosts a Discussion on British EU Membership CSPAN June 1, 2016 10:00am-11:31am EDT
the texas fair trade coalition, about the north american free trade agreement. naftarea often called it is often called. that does it for today's washington journal. we want to thank the city of laredo. the mayor's office and the construction workers who stopped working for us. and also the u.s. customs and operation here in washington and in the radio. toy helpful for c-span, allow us to go there and bring from laredo so that you can get perspective on the ground in a border town. i want to thank all of our guests for joining us. we now bring you to the heritage foundation where they are discussing u.k. membership in the eu and the global implications of the referendum.
>> the program on the heritage homepage for everyone's reference following presentations today. hosting our conversation is to coffee, he directs the research for the and the former soviet union at the western hemisphere. he previously served as the margaret thatcher fellow before joining us here at heritage. he served in the united kingdoms ministry of defense. known for working in the house of commons. he has served as in the united states as an officer stationed in italy. please join me in welcoming him. luke?
[applause] luke coffey: thank you for joining us to discuss this important issue about the future relationship of britain with the european nation. for americans who believe in the idea of economic freedom, direct relations. diffusion of power and transparent and good use of taxpayer money, power and decision-making brought down to the lowest level possible, many developments we are seeing in europe should come as a shock and concern. the 1950's, -- has morphed into a super organization that touches on almost every aspect of life across europe. areaws and regulations increasingly viewed as unnecessary and heard them some. there are 70 words in the lord's prayer.
200 71 in the gettysburg address and 313 words in the 10 commandments. but the european regulation number 1284, laying down the size of hazelnuts in a shell is 2900 words long. the amount of time when social media and globalization and the internet and mass communication and powered individuals, the eu is doing the opposite by bringing power and centralizing it to the top. and this goes against the natural state of affairs. the key decision-makers are unaccountable to the national governments and to the people. hilton, a top adviser to the british probe -- british prime minister said, the only thing you need to know about the european union is that it has three presidents, none of whom are elected. the united kingdom is the fifth
world largest economy. it has a nuclear deterrence, a permanent seat at the un security council, is a member of the commonwealth of nations. thans more outside the eu it does in the eu. it has a special relationship with the united states and with the community. so, parliaments and courts are not the supreme law of the land. they cannot sign their own free trade deals and they cannot control their own borders. we would never allow this in the usa so why would we want to support something like this for the closest ally? today,ing these issues we have a distinguished panel. our first speaker is dr. , currentlyates serving as the national security advisor for senator ted cruz. cultural historian who
received her phd from the university of pennsylvania, specializing in italian studies.ce in 2007, she became the director of research for donald rumsfeld and provided editorial support and content analysis for the new york times bestseller "known and unknown." she is a senior fellow at the commonwealth foundation. is a consulting curator at the cleveland museum of art. "the historyok is of democracy and 10 works of art." victoria? victoria coates: thank you. thank you to all of my friends here at heritage. it is wonderful to be participating in these events. for us a critical issue
on both sides of the pond. i am glad to have this opportunity today. i want to start my remarks with a minor sidebar. i like to address president obama's recent trip to london, but first, i want to mention one of his comments that was not related to the brexit issue. but rather to a issue that took place after he became president. it had been loaned to george w. bush after 9/11. it was reported that president anda was sending it packing replaced it with abraham lincoln. art is a personal thing and each president has the prerogative to surround themselves with objects they find inspiring, but what was interesting to me was the white house response. reach thewas out of communications director writing a fact check blog. that it hadn't been
returned but that the churchill had been moved to the resident. he declared the whole thing a ridiculous claim. the story persisted and here is where it is valuable to have an art historian on staff. two sirre actually winston's and one had been returned to the british embassy. mr. pfeiffer updated his blog post with the record -- with the explanation that the first one was being worked on. by the time mr. obama came to office, the work was done, making the second-best redundant. the notion that it had been returned because it was not legend."s "an urban persisted, due to a tendency
to try to rewrite history that he found personally distasteful or uncomfortable. churchill, with his association with the british empire might have seemed out of place in obama's oval office. cruz, raise the issue in a speech saying that one of the first acts he did upon being elected was sending churchill's bust back to the u.k., and i think that foreshadowed everything to come for the next six years. a statement that earned him two who judge that while the white house aide might have recognized the symbolic , it was not one that may have risen to the president who was preoccupied at the time with wings like the financial crisis.
finally, however, on be trip to london in april, obama addressed it and told reporters that he had indeed personally directed the removal of sir winston and his replacement by martin luther king on the grounds that it was appropriate for an american president to have a bust of an american in his office. "there are only so many have before it starts to look a little cluttered in there. " this episode is illustrative on the approach of an administration that speaks in symbolism. clearly, the president and his aides knew perfectly well that the return and replacement of the churchill bust marked a significant shift from the bush era approach and the special relationship with the united kingdom. where they got into trouble was
the not owning up to the change in policy. which brings me to the topic today. the referendum on leaving fifth european union that will be coming before the british people on june 23. mr. obama made his remarks on during hisll bust trip that was supposed to sway the british people that brexit would be a bad thing. it would damage their economy. he went as far as to say that if they left the union, it would go to the back of the queue for trade deals. the core of the policy shift, represented by the return of churchill's bust. as he has demonstrated again and -- forobama prioritizes
him, the notion that the brits might choose to retain their freedom and protect economic prosperity by withdrawing is fundamentally unfair to the other nations who are dependent on the union. the future of europe is in brussels, into which the states should be absorbed, rendering any special relationship between the united states and great britain obsolete. it is astounding to me that an american president who, one month earlier, had been standing , would be soo eager to override the actual sovereign rights that the british people have to determine their own future. thathat compounds that is brexit is in the best interest of britain and the united states. europe is a continent, not a
country. it is worth restating here, the 28 members of the eu are widely disparate, in both economic strengths and culture. eu proposesas the to dominate. forcing nations to stay, both great britain and greece, to conform to the norms dictated for brussels is an ill-fated project. the notion of a bending them is being condemned. the president of the european commission went so far as to say in march that the eurosceptics should visit the military cemeteries of world war ii to learn the ever of their ways. here we have the crux of the matter. the european union was conceived continent washe reeling from the global conflict. the devastation was unimaginable.
to prevent this from happening again was a priority. the process to bring the individual countries of europe into a single union was initiated. forwarding 70 years, the big news is that there has not been a thorough world war -- a third world war. -- for that was not a case of european members fighting one another. while europe faces a real danger from an increasingly aggressive russia and from the radical islamic terrorists, the threat that the eu was designed to counter no longer exists. tos is not an attempt minimize the trauma of the world wars or to see just no such thing could happen again. but it is to propose that we should not be prepacked -- be
preoccupied with fighting the last one. this is closely tied to american security. the two issues that are fueling breaks it are simple that we understand. economic security and immigration. planents of brexit britain,madness for you only certain disaster would be remaining in the eu, which is turning out to be nothing more or less than an economic suicide pact. can salvaged states one independent, strong, independent partner from the eu, we might consider that an opportunity. activehas been an proponent of the open borders that have enabled unchecked migrants coming from the middle resulted in a significant radicalized islam
problem. elected conservative governments pledge to counter such progress have been nullified. the fact of the matter is that this is a security problem. a most significant security threat that europe currently faces. policies,the eu individual countries have an obligation to their citizens to confront it. the united states has benefited from a collective european union but the purpose of nato was never to dissolve individual states into one that to provide them a venue for communication and cooperation. forward, that might be the more productive model for in the current incarnation, it gives greater risks than if promises security. i don't blame our british friends for having second thoughts of the project. thank you. [applause]
luke coffey: thank you. our next speaker will be dr. ted bromund. he studies and writes on anglo-american relations, the u.s.'s leadership role in the organizations and entreaties. he is a senior research fellow in the heritage foundation's margaret thatcher center for freedom. he previously served nine years as an associate director of yale university's international security studies, a center dedicated to the study of diplomatic history and strategy. he was a lecturer in history and 2004, in international affairs for the master of arts program. he is a prolific writer and has published hundreds of articles in numerous publications.
he received his doctorate in yale.y in 1999 from his thesis on britain's first application to the economic community, relevant to the discussion we are having today won be dissertation prize from the british politics group. degrees two masters from yale as well as a bachelor's degree. ted bromund: thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. talk, for once, about the subject of my research. i have waited 25 years for this moment. relevant, goon is buy your copy now. i'm not going to talk about my dissertation. but what i'm going to do is provide a historical overview of american policy for europe, talk a little bit about the cold war era and the ways in which the
, and its while predecessor, the way those were part of america's cold war strategy. and then what happened at the end of the cold war and how the train ran off the tracks. let me start by saying that since the end of world war ii, u.s. policy towards europe has drifted without a lot of farberate thought, there he from the original premises in the late 1940's. it really accelerated at the end of the cold war. at the same time, europe felt the change. ifcontention today is that we want to get back to proper policies, we need to understand history, understand u.s. policy in the 19 40's-19 60's and get back to a u.s. policy that speaks to goals we did achieve successfully in europe during
those years. let me start after world war ii. in 1945, it was widely accepted in the united states and europe that u.s. forces were not going to remain in europe for very long after victory over not see germany. it would be a matter of months, they be your two. obvious as the cold war kicks off that the permanent or semipermanent u.s. security goal in europe was going to have to be undertaken. that leads to the creation of the nato alliance. time, the u.s. realizes that the european state , and here we mean the western european state, were far weaker -- socially weaker, politically weaker and economically weaker after world war ii that the u.s. had expected. it turned out that they couldn't stand on their own right away.
if we left right away, the whole place would fall apart. so this leads rapidly again to the advancement of the u.s. reconstruction efforts in primarily western europe, demise in the marshall plan. nato, marshall plan and they have the same fundamental goal. they are concerned about an actual soviet invasion of western europe. but what is more significant is that american diagnosis is that europeans have lost confidence. the real threat isn't soviet invasion, it is an internal european collapse. that might come as a result of concerns about security, hence the need for nato. the soviets but also to prop up the europeans to give them confidence. or as a result of the political
plan -- there is the marshall plan. all of this stems from a and thoughtful american diagnosis of the causes of the great depression, the causes of the rise of the nazis and the cause of world war ii. the american concern is, don't let american economic security go down the drain, because when they go down the drain, it will lead to radicalism and bad things happen. and ultimately, the american army has to get involved. that is a reasonable diagnosis. so what are the american remedies? well, in the best sense of the word, -- free trade. one of the american diagnosis is that, your nations are too walled up economically, you should trade war with each other. you will be more prosperous and it will be good politically. reconstruction --
the world bank -- it began as a short-term reconstruction program in europe. there is debt forgiveness on a very large scale. there is the international which was intended to provide short-term currency problems. the u.s. places in enormous emphasis on german regionalism, making germany a federal state. reducing centralized power of berlin, making germany a little withike the united states strong states and republicans. and a strong u.s. emphasis on on theteralism and socialeconomic level. these are intended to rebuild the european state system. france, fortify
britain, germany in a federal structure, italy, and the other smaller states in europe. this is not a program of wiping out the states, it is a program of rebuilding. i am large, this program is extremely successful. nato works, european confidence is fortified. the marshall plan is successful. european economies do recover and retain political confidence. they are not invaded by the soviets. they are not overtaken by domestic radicalism. one other part of this american agenda is the support for emerging ideas about the centeredintegration, on the coal and steel community in the 1950's. the coal and steel community is a franchise, the idea really is to restrain germany, to tie in
the german institution before it gets too powerful. that is the predecessor of today's eu, and is part of a ach larger program that is liberal, multilateral, multi-state fortified program. fast-forward to 1991. we get through the end of the cold war. hey, whatecides that we did after 1945, we can now do. we can reduce our exposure to europe. we can start bringing people home. because look, we won the cold war in europe. what does this lead the united states to do? it leads the united states to begin to outsource most of its policies to the european union. the european union becomes a vehicle for many, although not all, american policies in europe
, because as we decrease our pivotst in europe, we can , theia or the middle east european union becomes our representative, as it were. the same time, the european union decides they can step on the gas pedal. theng the cold war, european union doesn't get very far down the road of integration because you need those strong nationstates if you are going to keep peoples loyalty during the cold war, and actually win. germany,ight fight for italian might fight for italy. brits will fight for britain. but they will not fight for europe. some of you may know what winston churchill called the idea of a european army in 1953 in a letter to president eisenhower. "sludgy amalgam."
force, it hasato to be a series of national forces, not a european force. after the cold war is over, all of the cold war imperatives seemed to dissipate. so the eu steps on the gas pedal and integration goes faster and deeper, aside from the moment when the u.s. is outsourcing more of its european policies into the european union. createss process instability, the euro, or the large-scale of immigration and migration into europe, the eu answer is simple. more europe. what do we need when the euro causes problems? we need a higher level of financial tax integration into
brussels. what happens when immigration and migration become a problem? the european union needs to take full control of everyone's borders to solve the problem. the answer is always more and more europe. now reached a point where this process has become self-perpetuating and self destroying. the more europe demands to solve problems, the more problems it creates. the more problems it creates, the more it demands more problem -- it demands more power to solve problems it has failed to address in the past. the united states has lost sight of our goals in europe. what are the goals? i don't think there have changed since 1945. we have the same basic interests in europe. above all, peace. we want the european continent to be peaceful.
our instrument for that has always been nato. since the late 1940's, the american security instrument to a short piece in europe, both to defend it against external threats and to shore up europe politically has been the nato alliance. --the eu is not an answer the foremost american goal is peace. as a contribution to peace, we want prosperity. this stems from the american diagnosis that the great was because of nazis was because of world war ii. where are we now? we are now backing the euro which is bad economics. right? in worldn we learned war ii is that bad economics don't make good politics.
what are we backing in europe? we are backing a currency that can only be maintained by creating extremely high levels of unemployment and low level of economic activity in most of the mediterranean countries. a are delivering the adopting we need and that economic strategy. are we following the lesson that we have learned? no, we are not. we are ducting the opposite. we are deliberately empowering bad economics and we are getting bad politics as a result, not a surprise. our third interest in europe is democracy. i would echo what victoria said. it is -- to national level politicians. protrudes deeply into the
states, it generates hostility in some ways that i find completely understandable and in ways i find less desirable. the european union is not the answer to the problem of european democracy, in part because it is supernatural -- super national, but ultimately, because if you look around europe today, and you believe that some european political trends are concerning, i have news for you. if the european union is secure for political extremism, how come the political union has advanced further and further at people have become more concerned about the state of european politics? i would submit that the answer here is not more eu, the answer here is less eu. as we have had more eu, we have had more problems.
if the u.s. continues to base on the european union, and i think most , iticans support the eu will continue to see more economic strain which is inherent in the euro. it will continue to see a weaker european-u.s. transatlantic security link. all of these developments will undermine nato. i don't think any of these things are in the interest of the nations in europe and they are not in the interest of the united states either. the true interests of the united states are the american ideas that help to save western europe after 1945 and save eastern europe after 1989, the ideas of economic freedom, multilateral cooperation toward security and prosperity and support for a
democratic national government. of thes the basis american strategy after 1945 and it worked. and do you know what? it can work again today if we have the courage -- and it doesn't take very much courage things that to worked in the past and not continue to go down the foolish road that we have increasingly followed. thank you. [applause] thank you for those clear and forceful remarks. our final speaker is dr. nile gardiner. director of the margaret thatcher center for freedom at the heritage foundation. he has worked in the heart of the washington policy world for more than a decade and is the leading egg that -- the leading policy towards europe. he has testified before congress and hasal occasions
advised the executive branch of the united states government on a range of issues related to u.s. foreign-policy in the transatlantic alliance. before joining heritage, he served as an aid to margaret thatcher and advised her on a number of international policy issues. working in her private office, he assisted her with the final book. "strategies for a changing world." he has a bachelors and masters degree in modern history from oxford university. after he gives his remarks, we will have time for some questions. you might want to start thinking about those now. nile gardiner: thank you very much. thank you to ted and rick torilla for two excellent presentations. my views on brexit are very clear. greateve firmly that
britain is better off outside the european union. and that brexit is not only good for the european union, but also for great britain and america. i will be outlining my remarks for why i believe that is the case. i will talk a little bit about margaret thatcher's view on brexit to set the record straight. i like to think of the eu as the modern version of the titanic. [laughter] nile gardiner: on a glide path towards a massive iceberg. and the british people on june 23 have the opportunity to jump onto a lifeboat. and i think many british people will choose to get onto the lifeboat. the latest opinion polls in the showpublished yesterday the brexit camp now has a
slightly over the remaining side. what you are seeing in britain --the moment is project fear the project launched by the british government in favor of britain staying inside the european union. beginning to think -- because i think the british public are thinking very carefully about their future in europe. of the scaremongering that is being projected by downing street and by the european commission and by a host of multinational institutions -- all of this fear mongering is being largely rejected by the british public. the mess that is being projected by downing street is like an episode of "the walking dead." if britain leaves the eu, they
will face the apocalypse. everyone will be forced to eat each other. that is the level of the argument. it is absolutely staggering, the , the world'sritain fifth-largest economy, one of the biggest military powers on the face of the earth, the idea that bush and cannot survive outside the european union. i think it is ludicrous. written, aew that nation that has been a global power for years, will survive outside the european union and it will thrive outside of the european union. the eu, at the moment, has tied britain down. decliningkled to a , and self-determination
and sovereignty matter in the world today. and without a doubt, americans would never accept the kind of sub nationalism that the british people have to and your -- have dure at this time. the central bank of the americas -- the pan-american court of justice in mexico city. most americans would reject the idea that the u.s. should relinquish control of the borders or have their court overruled by foreign judges. you know, this is exactly the scenario that is being faced by the british people and by people across europe. if britain doesn't vote to leave sure thisjune 23, i'm will just be the tip of the
iceberg in terms of those in europe who will follow suit. i would expect to see a wave of referendums across many european countries. i would expect to see others following britain leaving the eu. exposesa doubt, the eu an economic burden on great britain. mayor of london noted in the telegraph a couple of days ago, it eu legislation british citizens 600 million pounds week. and great britain is no longer a truly sovereign nation. has saidsh think tank the most expensive regulations a host ofigures on british institutions have put out figures with regard to the tremendous burden and cost of the eu regulation.
only 6% of british companies trade with the eu but 100% of them have to comply with eu laws and regulations. there is a sharp contrast between the large number of british business leaders, and especially the small businesses that have come out in favor of brexit, in contrast to the vast array of multinational banks. they are campaigning for britain to stay inside the european union. there is a disconnect between the british grassroots and the international political elites who are warning the british people about their own future, if they dare step outside the european union. the eu is in economic decline, since 2008.
u.s. gdp has increased by 13%, the eu gdp has increased by 3%. the eu is a graveyard of low growth. the only continent with lower growth is antarctica. at the same time, britain is not in a position to control its own borders. 2015, 270,000 people immigrated to the u.k. from the eu. as a citye same size such as oxford. that is a staggering level of integration into the u.k. and the british people are opposed to the idea that they have no immigrationels of from europe. there is a fundamental lack of democratic consent here with regard to immigration. that the strongly
united states, as victoria mentioned earlier, stands to benefit from brexit. a britain that is free, a great britain that is sovereign and can make its own decisions, will be a far stronger allied force of the united states. president obama was absolutely theg to intervene in british state. i would describe the thervention as a slap in face of the british people. he comes over to america's closest ally on the international stage and tells dare leave theey european union, they will be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal. this is an extraordinary intervention by a u.s. president , not only giving the wrong advice, but also speaking in a
condescending tone towards a very close friend and ally. needless to say, the intervention backfired. i think most british people rejected the idea that president obama should be lecturing the british people on how they should be voting in their own referendum. , that britaint would be at the front of the queue for a u.s.-u.k. free trade deal post brexit. andou look at the depth size of the u.s.-u.k. financial the largest, it is by investment relationships in the world. states has $5 trillion of assets in the united kingdom. that represents 22% of total u.s. corporate assets abroad. this is a huge amount at stake here for both the u.s. and u.k.
economies. the u.s. has free trade agreements with 20 countries across the world. it even has agreements with nicaragua and morocco, and i would have thought that a free trade agreement signed with great britain would be a no-brainer. ,nd i think the next president regardless of who it will be, is highly likely to support a free trade deal with america's closest friend and partner on the international stage. there will be momentum on capitol hill for that as well. t that will be threatened. and the european union, with its superstate,create a has been damaging in many respects to the special relationship and to the bilateral relationship between
the united states and great britain. under no illusions that the eu commission is attempting to create a european union army. last weeknt exposes -- it would only be revealed after the referendum. around june 24, quite a coincidence. i recommend that article to anyone who is interested. into the eu plans into build and eu army as a competitor to nato. it is nato and the broader transatlantic alliance that -- it does not quake in its booth at the thought of a european army. it is afraid of american power in europe, afraid of nato power,
and i believe that nato will be significantly strengthened with great britain outside of the european union. without a doubt, the united states needs to reassess the entire approach. the u.s. has many decades backed this is an projects, and's -- a very outdated -- the united states needs to support economic freedom in europe. all of the things that the american people cherish and hold dear in their hearts, what is good for america is good for which is certainly the view of my former boss, margaret thatcher. there have been a number of mischievous articles suggesting that margaret thatcher would be opposed to brexit today.
i can say, based on my own conversations with the iron lady over the years, that were she alive today, she would be fighting tooth and nail for british sovereignty and supporting the british exit from the european union. she first wrote about this in , and always, she was years ahead of her time on this issue. i would like to conclude with a quote by margaret thatcher. theh i think encapsulates european project and why the british people need to reassert their sovereignty. such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a european superstate was ever embarked upon will see in future years to be the greatest folly." thank you.
[applause] luke coffey: thank you for those remarks. we have some time for questions. we have a microphone, raise your hand and if i: you, identify yourself and any organizational affiliation. and please wait for the microphone. i will go over here first. the center of principles and politics, i am an intern. a question for nile gardiner. said, margaret thatcher would be opposed -- or would be in favor of brexit, why is the current conservative them saying in the union? how did they get so off-track?
[laughter] luke coffey: putting it lightly. nile gardiner: an excellent question. i should point out that david cameron was interviewed soon after she passed away and he was asked whether he was a thatcherite. and he said no. and david cameron doesn't see himself as someone in the vein.her he represents a very different vision to that of architecture. british government, there is a deep divide. several cabinet ministers are campaigning for brexit and you have a number of jr. ministers as well. mpshly half of conservative have indicated they support a brexit.
thirds or 70% of the conservative party members support brexit. i would argue that david cameron is out of touch with his own party, and whatever the outcome of the referendum, i would expect the next prime minister or leader of the conservative party, and by default, that person will become the prime minister after david cameron has promised to step down before the 2020 election, the next leader will undoubtedly be a brexit supporter. it that is the mood of the party. it is very hard to see someone taking the reins of the conservative party and believing we should stay in the european union. because such a cabinet would not be voted for by the grassroots of the party. but certainly, the conservative party remains very divided over
this, but you have david cameron basically uniting with the left, siding with the labour party. siding with brussels and president obama, and every single entity on the face of the , a veryd all of britain large chunk of the people, going against him. and i think they will prevail on june 23. sending a very clear message. luke coffey: the gentleman over here to my left. in a white shirt? >> good morning. michael, i was the president of the european-american business unit. after dealing with the eu for a decade, i understand some of what you are saying. it is very difficult to get a
transatlantic cooperation on commercial issues. my question is, if the u.k. leaves the eu, will the scottish nationalist party have a reason to stay in the eu and have another referendum, which would divide against the u.k.? actually, if i may, at on this one even though i am the moderator -- it is important to note that the scottish nationalists published a this year.anifesto they had local elections this year in scotland and in the manifesto there was no commitment or pledge to have another referendum. -- anothera independence referendum. and the idea of the brexit referendum was well known. so if they wanted to go down this road, they could have snuck this into the party manifesto
and they would have had a mandate from the people to have a referendum in the event of brexit. but they chose not to go down that road. in my opinion, this is part of clear if thefear," british people vote to leave, the nations of the united kingdom, great britain and northern ireland, they will want to leave and join the eu -- i think it is smoke and mirrors. nile gardiner: briefly, and that is a very good question, if these are scottish people who kingdom,o leave the they would have to apply to join the european union. they would also have to apply to join nato, if they wish to join. and the spanish have indicated -- so be scots would be completely out of the eu and
vote tothey decided to leave the united kingdom. you raise a good point about how 90% of scots in opinion polls wish to remain part of the european union and euro skepticism is more powerful in england than in scotland. the scots, that for a departure from the united kingdom would have far-reaching ramifications for them on a whole host of issues. and if there was another scottish referendum, even if leave, iotes to would think that based on current projections, the scots would choose to remain part of the united kingdom. let me offer a few
comments. i agree with nile gardiner. there was a good book written explaining how scotland sovereignty disappeared and the european union euro filed scotland appeared. something very fundamental has changed there. and those people who are looking for a good subject might think about that one. there is an a salient point that no one has mentioned -- the scottish independence at the time of the scottish referendum were 100 percent based on the idea that oil was going to have a permanently high and stable price in the world market. that has proven to be untrue. right now, north sea oil is not making a lot of money. and it is a declining asset. , the independence at this point will have to hike it will have to
cut spending rapidly. i know which option i would prefer that it will have to go after thef the roads sizable and permanent increase in the world price of oil. so how do you make this work, economically? snp is a question which the didn't have a convincing answer to at the time of the scottish referendum, and any answer they did have is less convincing at this point. luke coffey: on a final point, a few years ago there was an economist issue which had two articles in it which i thought was lovely. the first one was on scottish independence. and they said if people wanted independence and governing themselves, you can't say no. then you turn the page and you read the column on written and europe, and they say britain must actually stay in the european union. it is unthinkable, under any conditions. and you are like, well, ok. if you are in favor of scottish
i amendence -- personally, skeptical, but if that is the way you went intellectually, that argument does not apply to the brexit vote? i don't get a good answer for that one. luke coffey: the gentleman in the black shirt? poor choice of words. [laughter] incidentally, i am from scotland. i have to mention that during the last general election referendum, party leaders had a debate. they happened to blunder into that thing. , the leadersking were being asked question about the eu, and she rattled off -- she is very patronizing -- she went on autopilot trying to
lecture and in the middle of her answer, she realize what she was saying. she actually said, well, just because you don't like the european union, it isn't appropriate to behave like a perpetual child. better together was the campaign slogan for staying in the u.k. and she suddenly realized that she had used those words and she had this stumble and then started talking -- i digress. point,ntirely different there is one word that creates a lot of discussion with the brexit issue for a large number of people in england. and turkey doesn't only represent a failure of the eu to deal with a serious threat, or a bully, or somebody that is prepared to do whatever they want to do to further their
incapabled the eu is of doing anything on the southern borders by turkey. not only does it present that, but at present a serious imminence in the jump of immigration numbers and resources if turkey were to receive membership to the eu. said, then it should be, but it is something that informs a lot of people thinking as to why brexit possibly has to happen. myself ascount somebody who was -- my question is, your analysis said we should state but a prior unfortunately, the three pillars don't address the problem of
turkey. and turkey would be in the third one, and would be part of the is a beautiful country and it is working towards prosperity for its own population, by spreading them across the rest of europe. but revisiting those three pillars don't help with the fact literally, the trojan horse is being rolled into europe. -- is wondering, is that that intentional on your part? or do you not see the turkish issue as being that big? the unitedcause states doesn't have a good answer to that? there are larger
questions there which we can't address about the nature of the u.s. policy towards the regime. i share all of your skepticism and maybe, even more, of the nature of the experiment in turkey, which i think is severely damaged, if not destroyed. i'm not here to apologize for buddy set up a state that offer the possibility of moving for the western model and that was a good thing. the reason i did not mention turkey is i have no more desire to see turkey secede from the european union then russia a seating to the european union. this strikes me as something that is very far off, it should have nofar off, and i desire to bring it closer in the near future. is erdowan government
repressive and intolerant in the extreme. politicalavorable trends in turkey that would cause me to reassess that point of view. amongno genuine desire the nations of europe and certainly not the peoples of europe for turkey to join the european union and for that matter, i'm not sure even the turks are all that enthusiastic at this point about joining the european union. what i know is that david cameron says he is very enthusiastic for turkey to join the european union. if you really stretch, you can the the argument -- which british prime minister's have made for a long time -- the more people we have in european union, the less effectively it will work and the more effectively we can muck it up by having a lot of people involved. i don't think that has been
terribly ineffective and i have no desire whatsoever to try it with turkey which is far too and significant a country to play a game with. i don't think turkey is a fit member of the european union. maybe i am ill-suited to say that because i don't really like the european union much anyhow. [laughter] turk, whya proud would i want to be ruled from brussels? it does not have any appeal to me at any level whatsoever. i can understand why it's an unattractive prospect for people in the u.k. or for that matter in france, germany, italy, lots of other places. follow-up, turkey has roughly 80 million population. it turkey joins the european union, this is a massive development.
i think that's another reason why the british should be keen to exit the eu. at the moment, angela merkel is operating with an appeasement policy toward the erdowan regime and bribing the turks to take back refugees. this deal is not going to last forever with turkey. i think europe is playing a dangerous game with the turks at the moment. turkey does enter the european union eventually, that would be a huge game changer within europe and you will see large-scale migration from turkey to points west in europe including the united kingdom. you also need to bear in mind that with the large refugee influx, the germans took in 1.2 million refugees last year.
iny took in 200,000 refugees february-march alone this year. i would expect that more refugees will find their way -- migrants will find their way to germany eventually. within a number of years, the will getor refugees german passports and that will give them the right to travel anywhere inside the european union including the united kingdom. aen germany's problem becomes british problem. you raise a good point about mass immigration and long-term consequences and these are big factors in shaping the debate in britain over brexit. observation ian think goes to your point about what has happened to the policy toward europe which is the day that our current resident made a decision to send back the winston churchill edict and he said which would be the first
foreign leader he would call and it was erdowan. on january 20,es 2009, really set the united states on a trajectory that has pursued a counterproductive policy. interesting how quickly things can change. when i worked for the conservative party a decade ago, before all this nonsense with erdowan, there was the thinking that because of the historical relationship between britain and the turks and specifically the british conservative party and voting inand because the council is based on population, getting turkey in the european union was away there could be an anglo-turkish access of control and influence inside the institution. we know now this is a bunch of nonsense and erdowan is someone
you cannot work with our trust. the gentle man in the front. this will probably be the last question. eyman in turn with family research council. issue, if turkey is not allowed to be more influential in the eu or join, straying toward the middle eastern side with opec nations and is that concerning? the other question is if the eu breaks away and britain breaks away from the eu and other countries would do the same, how would that affect greece or even the eastern block like romania and hungary where they have weak economies? how would it affect them? >> let me say a few words on the first point. my concern is not that turkey will stray for the middle east.
my concern is that the erdowan regime has already pushed turkey to stray toward the middle east if i can put it that way. regime recommends a deliberate rejection of kamal turks'believe that they had to lie in turkey and the idea of a new ottoman empire was a dangerous delusion which had caused turkey in world war i and pre-world war i years lots of lives and lots of treasure, turkish lives and treasure. the answer to that was to have a turkish state that was for turks, not a turkish middle eastern empire. erdowanrning ideology regime was new ottomanism, the expansion of the old ottoman role. the european union did nothing
to dissuade him from any of this. these are internal turkish developments which i think are highly undesirable but the european union is not in any form an answer to this question. this is a turkish issue. on the question of economics, greece has undergone economic infraction that is bigger than our great depression. it has done that because it is part of a currency zone. if you cannot the value your currency externally which is not a cure for lots of things but if you cannot devalue your currency externally, you must devalue your economy internally. the valuing economy internally is a polite way of saying you need to have extremely high unemployment. getting out of the euro is not a thereign your for all of economic problems of greece and other places. if you cannot recover your external financial freedom, you're going to deal value internally.
that is the way it works. problem number one that these places have is they are in the euro. the problems greece is experiencing our great problems. to say you will shackle the u.k. to solve those problems i think winds of, from an american perspective, counterproductive. then you're just undermining the u.k.'s ability to act as financial partner to the united states. out of self-interest, that does not help us. from the great perspective, being in the euro if that's , youmentally the problem will know will solve it if you make your prime directive to stay in the euro. >> one point on your second question about the economics impact of rex it on the rest of europe.
-- brexit on the rest of europe. the greeks are better off outside the european single currency. the euro is a political project at the end of the day. it's an artificial construct. you are beginning to see that construct crumbling. brexit takes place or not, you'll see the euro begin to crumble and eventually fall apart. greece is being given orders from brussels and berlin. it's not a sovereign nation. it barely runs its own government at the moment. that is an unsustainable situation. to thehere is a limit generosity of the german taxpayers. the germans have benefited
significantly from the euro but otherk the idea of european countries, patients will run out in germany as angela merkel faces a tough election next year. little seeing the physical landscape -- the physical landscape starting to change across europe and the great momentum toward sovereignty and self-determination across the european continent. greece countries like are far better off if they are unshackled from the euro. i think greece is that are off outside of the european union as well. i believe that brexit will certainly and courage many other to hold countries popular referenda. european elite that
have dominated the continent for many decades it will be taken by when european populations actually vote on their future in the eu. even in germany, there is rising euro skepticism and the european project is being fundamentally challenged all over europe, not just in britain. that's a very good thing, i think. anything that advances the drive andrd democracy self-determination and taking powers away from centralized bureaucracies back into the hands of the people, i think that is a positive result. great, for the british citizens in the audience, you still have a few days to make sure you register to vote in the referendum. every vote will count, that's for sure. hopefully, you learned something today.
for everyone else, thank you for coming and join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] in 24 hours time or less, you can watch this and then if you're so inclined on heritage.org. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> june 23 is the date for the u.k. referendum on whether to leave the european union. is planning to visit the u.k. later this month. he is going to attend the official reopening of his hotel and golf resort in scotland on the day after the u.k. referendum. the guardian is reporting about public opinion in the u.k. saying it has shifted in the u.k. toward leaving the eu. the polls suggest that as the
referendum picks up pace, with previous polls have tended to show voters surveyed online to be more in favor of britain leaving the eu but the latest research for the guardian shows the response is the same result. you can find out more at the guardian.com. more live coverage today -- president obama is speaking in indiana. he will talk about the presidential campaign. we will have that for you live at about 3:30 p.m. eastern and will take your phone calls after that. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, chief justice john roberts at the fourth circuit judicial conference. j harvey wilkerson talk about diversity in the court system and other issues. here is a preview. >> mr. chief justice, you mentioned the unanimous nature of the brown v board of
education decision 62 years ago. how would you describe your approach to consensus building on the court and how would you compare it to the styles of some of your favorite chief justices in our history? >> it's interesting. it was a great than if it that brown was a unanimous opinion. there is another side to that which is it was unanimous in many respects because they left a lot of things undecided. you had a generation of litigation trying to figure out what does this mean and how does this work? obligation apply ?nd on what basis it was unanimous and that was good and i understand chief justice warren's reasoning. but it is subject to criticism. 3, let's get 7-
some of those things clear so people know how to implement this. there are pluses and minuses. sometimes when we have written opinions, people have said in the lower courts who often pay the price which is how do we do this. maybe you could have given us five more pages to give us more guidance. i try to achieve as much consensus as i can. that's not something i can do on my own. we kind of have to have a commitment as a group to do that. i don't want to speak for the others but i think we spend a fair amount of time, a little more than others maybe in the past, talking about things, talking them out sometimes brings you closer together. but it has been subject to some criticism that it can put things off.
thisay let's not deal with issue today but maybe in five years you get another case where you have to and some people think that's bad. i don't. i think it has something to do with judicial philosophy. i think we should be as restrained and only decide issues when is necessary to do so. i think that's part of how i look at the job of the judge in our system. how it relates to others? i am not quite sure. --big chunks of our history john marshall, the idea was not clear that you could dissent because everything was unanimous. i think that have a lot to do with john marshall, just the force of his intellect and his gregarious nature, the first big decision he made was we will all live in the same boarding house and they had a lot of responsibility outside of washington so they did not have a permanent residence. they very much functioned as a group.
if you look at the history, it's not because marshall imposes will of the others. there was a lot of exchange. considerediews were and often became part of the unanimous opinion. >> you can see all of chief justice roberts's comments at the fourth judicial conference. that's tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. ♪ ♪ good morning, it's wednesday, june 1, 2016 and the washington journal is live from the u.s.-mexico border from laredo, texas over the next couple of days to talk about trade and immigration. we will get a perspective from folks on the ground and you get to ask questions as well. will start today with immigration at this location in laredo locally known as bridge one where mexican and american
commanders cross back and forth on a daily basis to work, shop, and travel. will also discuss illegal immigration. we want to kick off the conversation now with your thoughts on whether immigration makes the u.s. stronger or weaker. if you live in a border state -- if you are an immigrant either legal or illegal -- all others you can also go to twitter or go to facebook.com/c-span. we will get to your thoughts coming up the let's begin with some information about laredo, texas. the population is just over 255,000. the median household income is around $40,000. a little over 31% of its population is below the poverty level. take a look at its demographics.
96% hispanic. we visited the border town back in april and spoke with local officials as well as the customs and border protection. you can see where laredo is on the map, between dell rio and brownsville which is the area that u.s. customs and border protection has ports of entry. you also have border patrol in that area. we talked to folks about that. when we talked to the mayor of laredo who is a democrat, does what he had to say about the history of laredo at economic ties to mexico. 1755 byo was founded in spanish settlers. they colonize the area and with the advent of certain wars that affected the area, some people left the laredo area and
formed a new area. it's basically the same families. we share the culture and we share the economics with them. we are very close. we are tied at the hip. if they move the other way, they bring us to their side. we want it that way. it has worked for is beautifully. some people speak about the and the tom and rhetoric we now here but it's because they don't know the border. this is why we invite everyone. donald trump was here. we invited any other candidates to come visit the border area. we are very unique. we do so much for the country as well. people just don't understand that or they don't realize it.
better job as a mayor to communicate that. thank you for allowing me to do that. host: that was the mayor of laredo back in april speaking to us at this location where we are this morning live in laredo, texas. pedestrians from mexico and the united states can cross back in or right here at bridge one. there are several other bridges where passenger vehicles can come across and where commercial trucking happens as well. we will talk about commercial trucking and trade tomorrow on "washington journal." but today's focus is immigration. -- isasking you immigration make this country stronger or weaker? richard is up first in massachusetts. what do you think? caller: i would say it makes us weaker. it divides people. maldenh, fiven
miles north of boston, i've never seen an hispanic person in my life going to school and now my city is full of it and they are doing all the work. it may be landscaping or roofing, they are talented people and good workers. and whenivides us you're a divided country, you get week. illegal means illegal. i don't like where they say we will give them amnesty. that is my opinion. i thank you very much. cruces, new las mexico, what do you think istmark caller: good morning have called in several times before. i want to thank c-span for doing this series. john anded this to this is just a follow-up.
i think this series will be very important in showing exactly how the border is not the static wall that donald trump wants but it is a fluid relationship between us and another country. i want to thank you for doing the homework that you another host do before shows like this. it is really appreciated. that you arein say providing a real service to the american people. now onhe line right television of the people who are lining up to come across the border. if you are in el paso, you would see the same line. thank you again and thank you for c-span. and that line of folks on your screen, that is the line that we saw when we were in laredo, texas back in april. we will be -- we are back at that location this morning and after 6:00 local
time in texas, folks are already lining up to come across. this is happening on an hourly and daily basis where folks are coming to us to work or travel and shop. this is just one area where it happens in laredo, texas. it happens along the southern border in el paso as well and other areas. lorraine is in redford, michigan, good morning. go ahead. caller: i think it makes the country weaker. have continue to let them illegal immigration, it's going to make us like another china out of mexico. and you know what china did to us. i think that is totally wrong. it should not be allowed to happen. host: what about illegal immigration question?
caller: if your are legal, you are legal, it i have no problem with that. host: charleston west virginia, good morning. caller: thanks again for c-span. i have a quick comment. i don't think a lot of people know that legal immigration constitutes 600,000 per year employment-based and family-based. that's like planning a large city in the united states every year. that is separate from the illegal situation. .hat is just legal immigration that's a lot of people to bring in at its competitive with jobs. with the economy the way it is, it's not even what people are factoring in. many focus on the illegal aspect and you cannot reward illegal behavior. if we start doing that, it sends the wrong message for anything. host: there is new data at an .mmigration are
att: recently, when we were laredo, texas, we talked with people at the border patrol, the agents that are outside of ports of entry they're responsible for everything in between and going into the interior of the country. we also spoke with the air and marine officer. with the portsn of entry folks, this is what say aboutloria had to the uptake in undocumented people who are coming to the border and trying to flee violence in their country. [video clip] seeing an