tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 21, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
maggie do? more precisely, how would maggie thatcher felt the next thursday's referendum? it was a quarrel between mrs. thatcher's former aides, friends of mine. but not household names outside of that small circle, but it was the well-informed debate. what is more interesting, even in the outcome is the fact that fully a quarter century after she left office, margaret thatcher is one of only two postwar british prime minister the other is churchill, whose role remain contested and important to a large number of british people because whatever other criticisms may be leveled and may be believed, both leaders aren't recognized
recognizedders are universally to have had a visceral patriotism that made them love their country and fight harder for it the interest. no other prime ministers before or since inspired quite that same belief, and that is why people ask what would maggie do? i will return to that question in a few minutes, but to do so, describei must first and what is legacy "thatcherism." if you want to understand the basic emotional drive of margaret thatcher, it is to be found in some words that she addressed to a television interviewer toward the close of the 1979 election campaign. with the election campaign almost over, she felt able for a moment to let down her guard, and she exclaimed "i cannot bear
britain in decline. i just cannot bear it." that outburst was completely sincere and prophetic. thatcherism was designed to halt and reverse the decline of britain. margaret thatcher was a practical politician rather than a philosopher, and her legacy was the record and result of practical responses facing britain today. initially, reversing britain's decline was seen as are an economic term because the most obvious problem were economic ones. her remedies were cautious, flexible and responsive to those problems as they crossed the government's past. as far as they were rooted in ideology, they were drawn from the anglo religion of economics. as was pointed out in a fine study, "the anatomy of thatcherism," it had been brought to first the both parties and was seen as a conservative as much as the classical liberal one. it was also an intellectually normal tradition with most of
the problems facing the new government. above all, the most obvious rival sect of economic solutions, central democratic version, seemed to have come to the end of its tether. they were strikes that brought britain to a standstill in what became known as the winter of discontent. thatcherism had a strong claim
to become a new, economic sense of following the implosion of postwar consensus economics, but that sure is -- but thatcherism was never purely economic set of ideas. when britain interest is challenge from other directions, mrs. thatcher drew another -- on other relevant traditions, notably on the tradition of tough-minded national interest realism and liberal internationalism to justify what the patriotic purposes were of the day. moreover, thatcherized impulses, whether in economics work policy, were not the final determinants of policy. a fierce hatred was governed by a practical prudence and two central victories in the whiners -- falklands war show that this is so. she did not expect or plan for an argentinian seizure of the falklands, but politics of natural regeneration could hardly refuse such challenge. though she was annoyed by mediation efforts, she let them play out until the end and she took calculated risks.
only after she had digested the best economic and diplomatic and military advice. at several points, she often concessions to aires and populated greater dangers. she maneuvered to victory as much as moving boldly. similarly, she threatened the miners union demands in 1981, when she was informed that britain had coal stocks to resist strikes, but she had once began the build up of coal stocks and other preparations to resist strikes that might come later. when it did come three years
later, she defeated it. these two outright political bit -- victories ran counter to the usual british politics of compromising and splitting the difference. together, with prominence and cold war diplomacy and success of economic policy, they established or domestic dominance, entrenched her economic and labor union reforms as a new consensus in british politics and elevated the international profile. in foreign affairs, mrs. thatcher personally played a crucial role in helping other western european governments to resist the powerful piece movement, thus getting u.s. stationed in southwestern europe. she brought together reagan toward ending the cold war peacefully at the various summits in the mid to late 1980's. to be sure, thatcher was obviously subordinate partner in the thatcher-reagan relationship on military and diplomatic policy. given the relative size to the economies and militaries, it could hardly have been otherwise. indeed, she should also have been the junior partner in terms of economic influence, too.
but she was not. it is mrs. thatcher who will be regarded by history as the more influential and revolutionary economic reformer. why should that be so? in the first place, the recovery of the british economy in the 1980's was more impressive because it started a lower economic point and occurred in the more left-wing country. jimmy carter, who was good at ruining an economy, did not match the socialists who had been running britain for the postwar time, and this was harder position to overcome. she had to regulate the market and had to overcome resistance from the west as well as from labor. finally, the reforms had major non-parliamentary challenges from the labor unions. once the miners were defeated, the british economy joined the american one in providing a demonstration effect of what free-market reforms could accomplish in a relatively short time.
those demonstration effects are not identical. privatization was britain's. of the two, privatization turned out to be more important globally. since both third world and werete economies ready-made solutions. when privatization succeeded, it was the most unlikely converts that took note. thatcher, even more than reagan, posed the economic challenge to the soviet union. either reform or fall behind further to the capitalist west. a comparison between the british economy after a decade of economics and the continuing stagnation of the soviet economy after 70 years of communism was simply too embarrassing to ignore.
once perestroika was introduced, however it very rapidly destroyed the communist system it was designed to save. in once the command economies of the soviet bloc collapsed, revealing the extraordinary wasteland produced, it was the thatcher model that new marker sourced toed -- emulate. it was thatcher to whom it the ministersy mr.'s -- such as czechoslovakia's and estonia's look to as a model of socialistorm the economy. they say as much as today. more subtly, the post-communist societies follow the thatcher model more quickly and their economies rose from the dead. it was not only in the
post-communist world that margaret thatcher was seen as an inspiration. thatcherism had a good role in asia and africa, the reduction of trade and capital movements, privatization, the better , these of public debt became the new conventional wisdom in ministries of finance around the globe. broad result, globalization, became the watchword of world banks. now, there aren't naturally points of view much more critical of the thatcher legacy then you have heard from me. her economichat policies simply failed. it is undoubtedly true that some errors were made in the watcher years. it is hard to imagine any government that does not make some errors. but they were
far outweighed by the economic successes of thatcherism, noticeably a sustained rise in productivity. some successes were evident at the time. she left britain as the world's fourth largest economy. the general success continued through the administration's write up to the 2008 financial crisis. indeed, on becoming chancellor in 1997 after the labor of it or he, gordon brown was given a treasury reefing and it was concluded with the words "these are wonderful figures." replied, "what do you want me to do? send a thank you note?" even if these were correct though, they would not be a her work. record of her privatization revolution had defeated the miners.
her role along reagan defeated communism. these were important and beneficial even if they had contributed nothing to economic improvement. which of course they did. criticisms oft those achievements, but it is simply not possible to persuade open-minded people that are substantial failures or political disaster doors. the labor and liberal democratic toties continued dislike them but they did not propose there repeal or rejection. the exception to this is the european union. most critics believe it was an historical -- a historical error
that her party and the country would see an retrospect. until the last few months, it is split down the middle of whether the future are truly european. it looked as though her critics might be right. but it is clear that this question is still in open one and since her views will let him to do influence others, the referendum debate on what would maggie do began. charles the lord water wrote an opening salvo. he argued that she would vote yes in the brexit referendum. charles was lady thatcher's closest collaborator on foreign policy. this closeness is indicated that they were the only other guest at the dinner party and sir dennis gave to the president and
mrs. reagan. on his last official visit to britain there were six people around that table and charles and his wife were among them. he remained a close and devoted friend to lady thatcher right until the day of his death. in fact, he was the last friend to see her. i think his opinion demands respect. so does the opinion of probably robin harris. he was an advisor to mrs. archer, head of the conservative research department and before that, one who helped with their biography, as i did, and has helped with the state and helped her with her final book. he declares adamantly "i know that margaret would have fought for brexit with all of her strength.
" charles is judgment was seconded by a former minister and thatcher's cabinet. the judgment was succumbed by a more politically substantial one. also, i recall by you. weighing in from the sidelines was charles moore, the distinguished most recent biographer. who in the spec tater cautiously not usually does speculate on what mrs. thatcher might have done about issues ,hat took place after her death but he concludes that in the end, yes, she had firmly and privately confirmed brexit by the end of her life. this is a distinguished list of magnificos. who is right? i customarily take the same position as charles when asked what mrs. thatcher would have done about the iraq war, brexit or anything else. in the strict this sense, it is
impossible to know what someone would have done about an event at your his or her death for the simple reason that deceased did not know it the circumstances in which the event takes place. circumstances which some gentlemen pass for nothing have in reality every article and support its distinguishing color and discriminating affect. everyrcumstances are what political either beneficial or noxious to mankind. in this case, charles would presumably argue that the reforms prime minister david cameron brought back from his european tour with britain and his relationship with that were a real improvement in the european union and thus favorable circumstances that would move a revived lady thatcher to vote may and the referendum. wouldy, robin harris
undoubtedly responded these were so trivial that they would undoubtedly render it less noxious to britain but they would lead to lady thatcher voting for her desire to leave. given all of the facts of the case, when that happens, we bring all her personal biases to making sets judgments and we risk furthering our own opinions on the deceased. that said, we need not observe the strict test standards in such policies in the interest of reaching a common sense verdict, in this case what maggie would have done. must that possibly, we test the reasons that these well-informed and intelligent people get for holding such opposing views. robin harris and his side have the most straightforward task.
they simply state things she lastin public, in her book, in her public speeches, and in private conversations criticizing the european union. they criticized federal ambitions and the direction of travel. some of her public statements go to the very brink of indicating withdrawal from the eu. she went further in private and told a number of people that she wanted to withdraw. charles did not deny this but argued that there were effectively two thatchers who veered back-and-forth between her rhetoric and irrational decisions. he says she could be as harsh as most harsh european skip take and then "would settle for the best in what she could get in european negotiations." there is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in the picture that charles paints. on a few occasions, i was in the room when she did exactly that.
she was blowing off steam and frustration at the antics of british and european partners. what she had to concede and sometimes would concede later considered that she made a mistake. charles in my view would be less than human if believing in the cause as he does, he did not also believe that he would be able to work out a similar deal with her on this occasion to state with europe on better terms. version iswhich closer to a dispassionate reality? let me suggest three criteria of judgment. place, though there were occasions when mrs. thatcher formulated in private and conceded later and public, her public statements were almost always invariably cautious, well calculated, and reflective of her intended policy.
life, herleft public speeches in the european union were almost uniformly critical on security, on into true into domestic policy, and on the weakening of national sovereignty. here is an ex -- here's an excerpt from a speech she gave to the congress of prod in 1996. -- the congress of prague in 1996: "the overall european federalist project, which was envisaged by some from the start, but which is only in recent years come out into the open, is in truth a nightmare." from her book -- "that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building the european superstate was ever embarked on would seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era, and that britain with traditional strengths in global destiny should ever have been part of it will appear to be a political error of historic magnitude." i think it is hard to accept that this consistent line of argument in more than a decade was the case of blowing off
steam that she would discard, and secondly, although she did change of mind, she did not zigzag on europe and go back and forth in policy terms. there is a clear trajectory in her career that takes it from being unenthusiastic endorser of u.k. membership in the 1975 referendum to growing disenchantment with it as prime minister to her later severe witticisms. butmoved erratically euro-skeptic in a
direct shunt. she made the groundwork for making the european union more habitable institution for the british union. she obtained a financial rebate for the u.k. cost excessive payment to brussels. it also true that big gave still more sovereignty to brussels. it is hard to imagine her voting for a european order that means that sovereignty rest with the european court of justice rather than at westminster. the only way to remedy this is with brexit, all of which inclines me to the robin harris side of the argument. it seems to be obvious that the woman who said "i cannot stand britain in decline, i cannot just stand it," would be
appalled by the remain -- i am -- that bases in the case or the eu that in arguments that britain's fifth-largest economy in the world, thanks to her, is too small and feeble to exist outside of the german rhine. i'm already on the brexit side of the argument, so we must keep the theme of bias of my own views. let me try to go deeper into thatcherism rather than consider what mrs. thatcher as a political leader would have said. in her important study of thatcherism, mrs. latcher argued that thatcherism drew more broadly on the distinctive english morality and in sophisticated books, she argues that since medieval times, it is distinguished between reason and the passions. reason should be invested in a government powerful enough to control the unruly passions of its citizens. the english however have
developed a different view of the passions, but is integrated with them in a single faculty. reason is a faculty that enables human beings to interpret and respond to experience as they well. a creative power that allows people to choose differently from others and what they did yesterday. so an individual is neither a mechanical effect of later nor ager social causes plaything of his or her unruly passions. this is what she writes. in this picture then, a human king possessed of its faculties is never really just potters clay. he is both potter and clay. he necessarily decides what to make of whatever happens to him. those choices should be respected.
social and political institutions should not be their permanent guardians, imposing desires butt arrangements and a them to make choices without pumping into each other and therefore allowing them maximum freedom in doing so. the writer believes that thatcherism is the recovery of this for most lost english social vision. she does not leave mrs. thatcher herself had the same vision self-consciously or thought through its various implications. empty, she know she has not because the two women were good friends. but she intuits that mrs. thatcher, in part because she at from provincial england heart, had held fast to the remnants of this traditional morality when it was retreating before the advancement of the socialist ideas in a metropolis.
view wascher in this rather like an amateur singer, who was unable to read a note of music but hold a tune, sings that othersr youth have forgotten that until her singing stars in their memory. in her view, it there was a surprisingly swift revival of latent's virtues and enterprise. a swift recovery of britain industry and the economy once given thatcherite freedoms. i needn't an share this entire analysis in order to see thatcherism as the recovery of those forgotten songs. they are an unforgettable spirit of individual. all once and compassed english people and crossed both
parties. now they mark a new division between those who resonate to the older liberal spirit and to those converted to the new constructivist vision of europe. you may have thought my argument were reason and conflict abstract. i sympathize with you. but consider this, the founders of the european union explicitly justified a new political order as a means of preventing their people from following their passions into conflict. that is why they have deprived them of so much democratic institutions that we and this country and in england tend to take for granted. yet, almost and affably, given the paradoxes of history, it is the european successes to this founding fathers are now aggravate national conflict and the social distress i their own unruly passions for university
-- uniformity in the case of the euro and other european actions. well, that was margaret thatcher's last argument. as a practical politician, she was always a work in progress. always the clever scholarship .irl reading a new book feeling her way in new policy areas. as she grew more confident in an weremaking judgments that generally more consistent with her other political instincts. she encountered the european union, the more suspicious of it she became. it seemed to her that to concentrate decentralizing and leveling rations at and sensitivities were sensitive both to the sovereignty and
aspirations of citizens. above all, she believed it simply did not suit the british up up under eight different belief. on this issue, she will prove to be either ahead of her party or behind history. if the brexit does occur, it might he a new phase of english history. in the style, under different sick -- circumstances, from elizabethan england or to a renewed closeness of the countries in the anglosphere of the world. , she will seem to be behind history. thatcherism will look like a glorious last stand in the liberal england. in my view, and either event, she will have deserved well the
people she governed for 11 years. without her, it would not be having any choice in the matter. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very those beautifully crafted remarks. extremely insightful. and i would like to ask you opening question. with regard to the impact of brexit on the anglo american relationship, how do you see reshapingst-brexit the relationship and could you also comment on president obama's intervention where he ruled and warned against -- where he warned against brexit?
>> if indeed the british vote ar exit that will start process. overnight there will be no change. there will be approximately two years negotiating a new relationship between britain and europe. i think that will be accomplished much more easily, and manyresident obama other people have argued. written is the largest market in goods and service than the rest of europe. and, it is not in anyone's interest that there should be a kind of trade war, and both sides will therefore i think act rationally once the shock is over. suppose for example the british do not reach an agreement upon entry into the single market, that does not mean that to trade will stop. i mean, most of world is not a member of the european single market will stop america is not. and, if american trades more
with the european countries then does britain. exports more to them. i think there will be a time of rational reconsideration of the best deal that both sides can get. i do not believe it will be a terrible outcome. i think it will be a better outcome for both is one of the disadvantages the british us had in europe is they were always subject into what most of the other european countries always wanted to do. i think those objections were completely reasonable from a british standpoint. we are much more critical of regulations, much more skeptical, and want a much more free economy than the rest of europe. dealnk the best way to with those questions is through the device of jurisdictional competition. uswill see which works out when those countries compete. i think we will be moving to that and we leave, if we leave the eu through exit.
to bet i think promises massive change. in the long run, i think the british will tend to look first at the countries in the commonwealth now known as the anglosphere. one of those countries will be america. but i think some of the early arrangements will be with canada, australia and new zealand. in fact, i think some of you james c plans of of bennett. he has rather detailed plans and i'm recognize them to -- recommend them to all of you. there will be some relatively easily development of relations. which had been severed by the
british to send -- decision to enter the european -- in the 60's and 1970's. the special relationship will play its part, but it will be the only relationship. there will be a slight nervousness at the beginning and whoever is prime minister and the ministers in the cabinet, seeming to rush to be america's the friend because at moment, the special relationship in england is suffering something of a decline. i think we need to work on that. but it will not be the very first thing the british will do in these circumstances. they will be looking at other members of the anglosphere family. and when they do that, they will then feel they are in a strong position to approach the u.s. with some suggestions. >> i'd like to invite questions from europeans. please identify yourself and any institutional affiliation you may have when you ask a question. >> national strategic studies
association. pointite rightly made the that leaving the eu is not the same as leaving europe. what do you feel the outcome will be and what you make of the view that it should remain in the eu? >> the tragic death of jo cox has brought all of the discussion of the next week to a halt. maybe it will have some effects, turnout for example, producing a sentimental vote, and maybe -- i haven't got the latest news -- but the murderer seems to have a connection with the fanatical group. if that is a case, it will be a
slight disadvantage, quite unfairly, for the brexit site. but these things happen. so i cannot predict the outcome. i would have said last week that brexit seemed likely to win because the momentum was clearly towards it and because the campaign to remain has been a failure. they have lost the battle in that sense. i will say this. what will happen as a result, whatever the result whether it is yes or no, whether it remains or goes, the european debate has been completely transformed and british politics. we now know that people who want to leave the european union are half of the population. it may be 48%, or 52%, they may fall to 40% but they will not fall below. they may rise to 55% or 60%, but they will not go above that.
but they are there. and you cannot have half of the population believing in something powerfully without the rest of the political structure, the bbc, the media, the major parties act as if they are just a small handful of cranks. so the european debate has been , transformed in britain, and that is a permanent change. it will have to be reflected in the conservative party. one interesting point about this debate in the last three or four months is it has been conduct that almost entirely within the conservative party. the other parties is not have counted. they haven't counted because people thought they were uniformly committed to remaining within but that is not white true. -- the labour
vote contains a lot of people who want to leave here they are discovering this. some of these people moved to brexit. u.k. itself is a part of the british structure. if britain decides to remain in it will be a watchdog to make sure that any other government will continue to keep the promises it made to the british people in this campaign. so europe he and, as i say, british politics have been altered from notley by this referendum campaign whatever the result and it is going to be altered in a way that i think is better because the previous result was to try to deny the plain fact that millions of euroskeptics and treated as though they were people not worth listening to. i know tony abbott as you probably do. i think highly of him. i think he is wrong on this. it's not surprising. the entire dave owes establishment which tony is kind of not a member of any way but
nevertheless, he did not, i think he would have to spend a lot more time thinking about it and really looking into it before he felt he could come out with anything on the other side. and i think he did have -- i think his main motives -- he missed think for himself -- he must say for himself, but i think his main concern is the unity and stability at a time when it is threatened by vladimir putin. i understand that. it is a very serious concern and you have to respect that kind of reason. >> competitive enterprise institute. you did not discuss the future of the united kingdom if we have brexit. can you comment on scotland and how that might fit in? >> u.s. news & world report. i am just curious about your thoughts on whether or not
europe is willing to let britain go, regardless of the voting of the referendum. as you know here in the u.s. we , have operated from the idea that we are sovereign political entities joining together in free association on which they could withdraw. an idea that was put to bed at 1955. will europe -- in 1865. will europe actually led written go? let britain go? john o'sullivan: first of all, mice to see you again. we have to pile hypotheticals on hypotheticals. supposing brexit passes, we don't know if it would pass in scotland.
everybody says the scots will vote against it, by how much. who will pass this bill to have a second referendum, it will have to be agreed by the british government who probably wouldn't agree because of the referendum two years ago. and finally, we don't know that it would get through the scottish parliament. they no longer have a majority there. most of the other parties would be opposed to leaving. think, all of them. so, it is a possibility. it may happen. my view of scottish independence referendum, i did not want scotland to leave the union and it turns out they didn't. but if they decided to go, they had a right to go. , if they wantcots you to go, they would look at the circumstances they would be looking at the circumstances they would raise leaving the u.k. with the price of oil in
the easement. and the high price of oil was the basis for the economic case for scottish independence. and with the spaniards determined not to have an incentive or a president for catalonia leaving, by letting the scots sin. so i think it is one of the scare stories which does not matter, is not true. it is not so much to keep us awake at night. i may, after all, if the scots want to go, we will let them go. pete, i dide at. not recognize you with a beard. however you? next question? it is hard to imagine a circumstances in 200 years in which a european superstate would not allow one of its members to disappear.
and i think we are talking about a completely different world. we do not know what it would be like for the moment. there is a great desire in europe to keep people in that the way it is done is not with guns, but with large checks with the northern europeans right and the southern europeans cash. so, i think that will be true until germany runs out of money. then i think it will be interesting. but i do not think there will be a battle. >> center for individual rights, i have a question about the effect of brexit on the relationship between the european union and russia. so, i am thinking both that western europe tends to be more accommodationist with russia and
britain. and also, the populist parties, the pro-exit parties of the european union tends to be accommodationist unless they are on the border of the russia. accommodatecy to germany, want all those greater interest either for the breakup of the union or for more of accommodation or both? >> at let me answer that in two ways. my ownrds to defense, view is that european defense policy, the attempt to create a separate and independent isopean army for example, it -- it either diverts resources
from nato or duplicates what nato already does. americans, british, should not have gone along with it. he should have insisted that the european defense treaty protects the whole of europe and has done so since 1949 is nato and we will accept no substitutes. those substitutes are a distraction and a diversion of resources at a time when the europeans are not spending enough money on the events of any kind. that is what we should be saying instead of creating these fancy dress uniforms. what we need is the europeans to spend more on defense. i think that a happen as a result of the rising anxiety about vladimir putin and russia. i think that britain's leaving the european defense structure could be a plus.
a good thing. and we should not bear it. the second point, i think this stuff about the accommodationist a central europe is overdone. it is a reaction to the fact that in 2009, president obama essentially told the central europeans he was not interested in them. he withdrew the deal over the missile defense treaty, he told the polls on the anniversary of the sovereign invasion of poland they have quite a reasonably begun to fear if we have got an aggressive russia on our border or next door to our border, we have to find a way of not irritating them. and that's says more than anything else, that is the response. you may have noticed the central european countries have continued to play their part in upholding european and eu sanctions on putin's russia.
a do not like it because it harms their it economies. but they have kept and signed onto, maintained, the sanctions on russia. so, i think this is overstated. red tie.ntleman in the >> today immigration and sovereignty are motivated the rights in the u.k., and what you said about english morality, you associate that with economic and foreign-policy. children -- [indiscernible] are the main people opposed to the eu and immigration and it might appeal to those people -- [indiscernible]
i think the emigration policy should be always in all countries, it should be determined why the assimilative capacity of the country. both in economic and cultural terms. what we want is for emigration means at a level that those new arrivals do not feel they are joining a small of their ownlave country without joining of america or joining australia. general, that has been true and successful for how long? since, i think it has been successful until the times in the 1980's. and since then, the numbers of immigrants coming in, sometimes they want to maintain a separate kind of institution.
a separate kind of nationality within america or within written. that has led to really serious problems. problems of national cohesion and social order and terrorism. so, we have to barrel of those things in mind in a practical way. mrs. thatcher did control immigration. she did not stop it, continued it at a moderate level. but it did not rise to the level at which it created or fostered tensions in the society. people, groups a simulated fairly well. not all groups, as we know. muslims are always harder to assimilate. they have a much more impervious , separatist culture. and the assimilate and that they get for deck if jobs and are members of the society. the problem in britain as that
the british have an kurds this in an interesting way. our ownnger teach children to be proud of being british. it is something which has disappeared. wantedatcher certainly them to do that. at one point in the war, winston churchill was asked why one of his ministers, mr. butler, what do we teach in the new schools we are planning? and winston churchill said, tell them how wolf took quebec. in a way, he is right. he is onto something. but we need to work out the implications of winston churchill's remarks. it iscountry that -- interesting that countries like india, for example, do stress in their schools a commitment to the country and at the same time the attitudes the americans do, the pledge of allegiance to the flag. it is hard to imagine that
happening in britain today. but if britain is to survive, it will have to become thinkable again. >> i am from orlando and i am curious about your reviews. as pointed out, immigration is really the successful argument that the campaign has used against the state campaign. i remember reading an a canadian newspaper during mrs. thatcher's governance of the united kingdom, in one comment about a proposal of monetary union within the the united between states, canada, u.k., a strike, and new zealand. >> i am sorry. so, the question is? what is the question?
>> [indiscernible] >> i think monetary union may be -- i am not an economist. euro makes me think there should be serious tests before we have a monetary union. i'd like to leave that to the monetary experts. i can see where something is failing, like the euro. i don't necessarily want to lay the groundwork for something that may fail as well. as regards to immigration in the debate, yes. over brexite battle has been a battle between the main people who say we have to remain in europe to be prosperous. i personally think that is false and so do a lot of eight economists apparently not the majority, but frankly, when
experts differ it is for the rest of us to make the best choice we can. that is what they are saying. we have got to remain in to be prosperous. the other side says, look, i am happy to remain in a free trade area but we do not want to find ourselves living in a country in which we do not have or not ourselves. britain has been a self-governing democracy and we do not see any reason why we should give that up. the sovereignty argument. the problem with the sovereignty argument has been it is a somewhat abstract argument. unless you have an example of how the loss of sovereignty is damaging to you. in this case, the fact that you were under the rules of the european union, you're not able to control the entry of european citizens into the country at all falls they have free movement of labor and three -- free movement of persons. you have less control of
immigration. immigration has been very high, both from the eu and other parts of the world. the majority of citizens are very worried about it. during the campaign, new figures came out suggesting the government simply did not know how many people coming into the country and how many people are actually claiming tax relief and so on and so forth. so, immigration has been a very important part of the brexit debate because it has been a very strong illustration of the loss of sovereignty and what it can mean and practical terms. brexit is passed, that will be one of the major reasons it is past. >> i am one of your former employees and upi. my question is, i know you are for brexit. if you were running as campaign
against it, what would you say is the best argument for it? >> it is an interesting question. their campaign has not succeeded. that is not going to say they will not win but the campaign as a whole has been a failure. one of the reasons being that if you keep -- some of the claims of what will happen become so ludicrous or exaggerated that people just dismiss them. it ony not have seen television, david cameron's first exposure to this, when he -- anis interview interview i forget to which television company, but the interviewer said to him, mentioning to recent prophecies of his own, said, prime minister, what is going to come first after brexit, world war ii or the great depression? and the whole audience exploded
and laughter because obviously these exaggerated claims were simply not being believed. and i thought at that point, we will have to scale back on that. they will have to do something cooler and calm her. but they have not. chancellor,he george osborne, threatened an emergency aged if brexit asked that would raise taxes by 30 billion pounds. that has produced two very strong rebukes. they would said never vote for such a budget which is the exact opposite of what you should do in the problems osborne was predicting. former chancellors and to party leaders wrote a letter to the telegraph saying that osborne was simply indulging in silly scare stories verging on desperation and that -- you do not often get chancellors saying
this. no responsible chancellor could perceive such a policy. tory terms, their arguments tend to be discreet. that is a nuclear weapon. i would stress as they have done, the uncertainties and risk of life outside. that's what they have done. the problem is that the other side and stress the risks of remaining inside the european union, particularly if they are thinking about things like establishing new sorts of european institutions like eight european army or a new fiscal union that would in effect takeaway fiscal sovereignty from the eurozone states. i think my answer is coming up as follows. a caset think there is to remain and it would be very hard for me to think of one.
>> [indiscernible] >> one of the arguments you hear around washington as -- is it would weaken the special relationship. how would leaving the eu perhaps strengthen the special relationship? john o'sullivan: i don't think it would weaken the special relationship at all. one of the problems is if you are a journalist and writing about these things they are all part of a kind of responsible public official and they take a cue from each other's, they said on the same panels and exchange the same ideas. they fall victim to a kind of conformity. what is it called? groupthink. kind of conformity and
forced by escapism. if you look at the institutions which have recently been issuing these condemnations of the idea exit, you will find peoples slightly lower down from the top person, to level doubts, giving a speech saying, actually i do not believe with what they are saying. i do not think the bank of england is correct on this. again and again, people coming forward saying, this is nonsense. it is not that there may not be a negative impact. there may. but there may be a positive impact to counter it. but leaving a system which is fundamentally a 3% common tariff of area or and and entries of not going system, is to have a terrible effect on the british economy or british society. so quite a lot of these arguments just have to be met
with a kind of robust, realistic common sense [inaudible question] way, let me put it this i'm a huge fan of america and a resident green cardholder and married to an american, have two american step dollars, i pay american taxes. and so i'm very much on america's side. and i'd be open to, you know, trying to forge an agreement with america on policies on a number of things. but if you say to me, you know, it's terribly useful having you chaps at the conference tables in brussels where all these things are hammered out, you're our representative and can represent our interests, and i say that's fine but it doesn't
quite include surrendering my independence and democracy in order to help you out time to time and yet that is the nature of the argument that barack obama made to the british people. we love you, stay in there, fight for us, give in. go fight for yourself. reporter: probably well said. and just a final question for you with regards to the future leave d cameron, if they the european union next week, what's the fate of the prime minister? john: there are two people involved here, because they're a partnership and i would say is a dead nt, george man walking and will not become prime minister and he will probably not be able to remain championships lower. he's waged -- they both waged a
campaign that's highly aggressive, which people just i nk is unreasonable and think he lost his authority and don't think he'll stay. the prime minister's fate will depend on three things, first on the vote. if there is breakfast, i don't think those in and out of the department think the man what waged a campaign against brexit will be the man to negotiate for the conditions of our departure and will conclude it would be somebody else. in the event there's a narrow victory to remain the prime minister will probably be perhaps able to cling on to office but he will do so as the
prisoner of boris because he'll have to surround himself with ministers who were on the opposite side of the campaign in recent weeks. the conservative party will conclude mr. cameron's judgment first in calling a referendum, and he didn't really have a good idea of what the impact of it was going to be and then almost losing it means that they -- he's on a very short leash and i doubt that he would survive for long. i do think the big question here is if -- and the only way he can in a sense retain independence and power is it there's a massive majority to remain and that doesn't look likely of course though it may happen. the long term question is this, the right in british politics has been divided by this issue for some time and divided
between two different parties, he tourism brexit for the last 10 years. if brexit occurs and even if remain wins by a small majority, i think a lot of people would be saying to themselves, the right could remain in office for a long time if it reunites in the same way the canadian right reunited and brought about the new conservative party there which then held power for nine years. there will be a lot of people who will be wondering how to get e ukippers, maybe to get the ukip back in the fold. that may be hard to do. brothers who fall out often are worst enemies than strangers can ever be. i do think a lot of people will be wondering look, if we get together we'll have more than 50% of the national vote and
probably wouldn't actually get that because some voters are not on the right but they get enough to be in power a long time and that's a very tempting opportunity. >> might thank john sullivan for a tremendous presentation today. and john, i hope you'll be back at heritage again in the coming months and you're one of our greatest friends so delighted to have you with us today and thank everybody for joining us today and we look forward to the brexit referendum next week on thursday. thank you.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> today a hearing on the progress made in the deployment of first net, a national public safety network for first responders. the senate commerce and science subcommittee meets live at 9:30
a.m. eastern and you can see it on c-span 3. and later, philadelphia mayor and democratic convention c.e.o. jim kenny talks about the planning for july's democratic national convention. we'll bring you that briefing live at 2:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span 3. >> today federal reserve chair janet yellen delivers the monetary report to congress. we'll have her testimony before the senate banking committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> with the political primary season over, c-span's road to the white house takes you to this summer's political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. donald: we'll be going into the convention no matter what happens and i think we're going
in so strong. >> watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. hillary: let's go forward. let's win the nomination and in july let's return. bernie: and then we take our ight for social economics, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention on c-span. c-span radio and c-span.org. >> british prime minister david cameron and labor party leader jeremy corbin led the house tributes no on of jo cox who was recently murdered after meeting with constituents in her district and also includes remarks by house of common speaker and members of parliament.
>> order. we meet today in heartbreaking sadness but also in heartfelt solidarity. any death in these circumstances is an outrage and a tragedy, yet this death in this manner in this person, our democratically elected colleague, jo cox, is particularly shocking and repugnant. all of us who came to know jo in her short service in this house became swiftly aware of her outstanding qualities.
she was caring, eloquent, principled, and wise. above all, she was filled with for humanity love , devoted to her family and a relentless campaigner for equality, human rights, and social justice. jo was proud to be the member of parliament for batley and spin where she had her roots and she was determined to live life to the full. she succeeded superbly. jo was murdered in the course of her duty, serving
constituents in need. she fought for them just as she fought for others at home and abroad who were victims of poverty, discrimination, or injustice. an attack like this strikes not only at an individual but at our freedom. that is why we assemble here, both to honor jo and to redouble our dedication to democracy. i call the leader of the opposition, jeremy corbin. jeremy: thank you, mr. speaker. last thursday, jo cox was doing
what all of us here do, representing and serving the people who elected her. we have lost one of our own and our society as a whole has lost one of our very best. she spent her life serving and campaigning for other people, whether as a worker for oxlam or for the anti-slavery charity, the freedom fund as a political activist and as a feminist. the horrific act that took her from us was an attack on democracy, on our whole country has been shocked and saddened by it. but in the days since, the country has also learned something of the extraordinary humanity and compassion which drove her political activity and beliefs. jo cox didn't just believe in loving her neighbor, she believed in loving her
neighbor's neighbor. she saw a world of neighbors. she believed every life counted equally. in a very moving tribute, kate allen director of amnesty said her campaigning on refugees, syria and the rights of women and girls made her stand out as an m.p. who always put the lives of the most vulnerable at the heart of her work. her former colleague at freedom fund said jo was a powerful champion for the world's most vulnerable and marginalized. she spoke out in support of refugees, for the palestinian people and against islamaphopia in this country. her integrity and talent was known by everyone in this house, by the community of batley and spen which she
proudly represented for the past year. it was that community in batley and spen that brought her up as well as of course a wonderful family to whom we share their brief today. her community and the whole country has been united in grief. and united in rejecting the well of hatred that killed her, in what increasingly appears to have been an act of extreme political violence. we're filled with sorrow for her husband, brendan, and young children. they will never see her again. but they can be so proud of everything she was. all she achieved and all she stood for, as we are. as are her parents, as is her sister and her whole wider family. jo would have been 42 this wednesday. she had much more to give. and much more that she would
have achieved. i want to thank the heroes who tried to intervene. bernard kenny, a 77-year-old former miner, saw the need and ran to jo's aid. he was stabbed and taken to the hospital. i'm sure, mr. speaker, the whole house will join me in wishing mr. kenny a speedy and full recovery. many shopkeepers and bystanders also tried to help. administered first aid to both jo and bernard, the police officers who made the arrest and the national health service paramedics who were on the scene so quick. in her maiden speech last year, jo said this, our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration. while we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me
time and time again as i travel around the constituency, as we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. we need, mr. speaker, a kinder and gentler politics. this is not a factional party political point. we all have a responsibility in this house and beyond not to whip up hatred or so division. thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to the prime minister and to rose hudson wilkins, our wonderful chaplin for accompanying me to the vigil for jo last friday in birstall at the priestley statue in the center of that lovely town. we, all of us were moved by the unity and warmth of the crowd, brought together in grief and
solidarity. i've been very moved by the public outpourings since her death. the hundreds of letters and emails we've all received in solidarity with jo's family in their hour of grief. and by the outpouring of charitable donations, to causes close to her heart, hope, not hate and the royal voluntary services. last night my wonderful friend, we held a vigil outside our town hall. one of hundreds of vigils attended by tens of thousands of people who right across our land who are so shocked by what's happened and want to express that shock and that grief. also want to thank the other parties in this house who offered their sympathy and support at this very difficult time. we are united in brief at her loss. and yet we must be aware, her
killing is an attack on our democracy. it is an attack on our whole society. as honorable friend, a member of world south wrote recently, jo's life was a demonstration against despair. and in her tragic death, we can come together to change our politics, to tolerate a little more and condemn a little less. jo's grieving husband brendan said jo believed in a better world, and she fought for it every day of her life, with an energy and a zest for life that would exhaust most people. today we remember jo's compassion and a passion to create a better world. and in her honor, mr. speaker, we recommit ourselves to that task.
>> prime minister, thank you, mr. speaker. we're here today to remember an extraordinary colleague and friend. jo cox was a voice of compassion whose irrepressible spirit and boundless energy lit up the lives of all who knew her and saved the lives of many she never, ever met. today we grieve her loss and hold in our hearts and prayers her husband brendan, her parents and sister and her two children who are just 3 and 5 years old. we express our anger at the sickening and despicable attack that killed her as she did her job serving her constituents on the streets of birstall and rejoined the leader of the opposition in his moving words in praising bernard kenny and all those who tried to save her. but above all in this house, we pay tribute to a loving, determined, passionate, and
progressive politician who epitomized the best of humanity and who proved so often the power of politics to make our world a better place. i first met jo in 2006 in darfur and doing what she was so brilliant at, bravely working in one of the most dangerous parts of the world fighting for the lives of refugees. her decision to welcome me, then a conservative leader of the opposition had not been entirely welcomed by all her colleagues and friend but it was typical of her determination to reach across party lines on issues that she felt was so much more important than party politics. jo was a humanitarian to her call, a passionate and brilliant campaigner whose grit and determination to fight for justice so her time and time again driving issues up the agenda and making people listen and above all act, drawing attention to conflicts in sudan and the democratic republic of the helping to show
despicable practice of rape and war and work on sara brown in cutting mortality in childbirth and her support -- support for refugees fleeing the fight in syria. there are people on our planet today who are only here and alive because of jo. mr. speaker, jo was a committed democrat and passionate feminist and spent years encouraging and supporting women around the world to stand for office long before she did so herself. when she herself was elected as an m.p. just over a yearing a, she said to one of her colleagues she didn't want to just be known flying around the world tackling international issues but she had a profound duty to stand up for the people of batley and spen and was as absolutely as good as her word. as she said in her maiden speech, jo was proud to have been made in york hire and serve the area she had grown up and belonged there in a
constituency of multiethic and multifaith people she made them feel like they belong $, too. her works were inspired by love and the outpouring of tributes we've seen in the past few days show the extraordinary reach and impact of her message. for in remembering jo, we show today what she said in this house to be true and i know it will be quoted many times today, we are far more united and are far more in common with each other than things that divide us. this wednesday as the leader of the opposition said, it would have been jo's 42nd birthday and there will be a global celebration of her life and falls and simultaneous events in new york, washington, london, brussels, geneva, nairobi and bay rue. -- and beirut. she should have been celebrating hadder birthday by hosting a traditional summer solstice party and behind the professional was a loving and fun mother, daughter, sister,
wife and friend with a warm, welcoming smile and so often laughter in her voice. jo brought people together. she saw the best in people and she brought out the best in them. her brave adventurer and keen climber, she was never daunted. when most people here replaced the inaccessible pen agole, they leave it well alone, not jo. she didn't just climb it, she an sailed down it and did so despite a bad case of morning sickness and it was her irrepressible spirit that gave her such determination and focus in her politics, too. a conservative colleague of mine said this weekend, if you lost your way for a moment in the cut and thrust of political life, meeting jo would remind you why you went into politics in the first place. mr. speaker, there have been so many moving tributes in the past few days but if i may, i'd like to quote from somebody we mourn ntioned, jo,
your loss yet know all you stood for was unbreakable. we promise to stand up even though we are broken. we promise that we'll never be cowed by hate. mr. speaker, may we and the generations of members that follow us in this house honor jo's memory by proving that the democracy and freedoms jo stood for are indeed unbreakable by continuing to stand up for our constituents and by uniteding against the hatred that killed her today and forevermore. >> amen. >> rachel reeves. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i stand today to honor a friend and a colleague. along with shock, anger and grief, i have very fond memories of jo. we knew each other for around 10 years and i knew her husband
brendan for longer than that. we first met at a student conference about 18 years ago and it was through brendan i first met jo. i remember them coming around for dinner at the house of my husband and i in london and seeing them on their boat first in the grove and then later. i remember worrying i had drunk too much wine earlier in the evening until i realized it was the boat that was swaying and not me. i remember talking with jo about her future shortly after i became an m.p. she was thinking about standing for parliament and spent a day shadowing me in my constituency talking to constituents about their problems, campaigning with party members and attending meetings. by the end of the day, a lot of people weren't sure who the m.p. was and who was doing the shadowing. jo had a way with people and a way of relating to people from all walks of life and she had a real way of doing that.
her main hesitation about the parliamentary career was her young family. she worried as many of us do about whether you could be a great m.p. and great mom at the same time. but when the opportunity came up to represent her home seat of batley and spen jo felt a responsibility to step up and do as she could to the place she was born, grew up and went to school, a place jo called home. jo wanted to make the world fairer, more equal, more tolerant and more generous. we all have better instincts and deepest fierce. jo appealed to our better instincts, our sense as she said in her maiden speech, what we have in common is greater than what divides us. on friday morning, less than 24 hours after jo was killed i sat in the coffee shot in batley, a few minutes ago where jo had been murdered and a woman came over to me and said she hadn't
known jo but her death made her want to be a bit more like her, a better person, a better mother, a better daughter, a better wife. it is ironic that after traveling the world to some of the most damaged war ravaged places in the world, jo died so near to her home but died doing the job she loved and in the place she loved, representing the people that she loved. her mom and dad said to me jo wouldn't have changed a thing. she lived the life she wanted to live. and yet in her mom's words, she had so much more that she could have done. jo was struck down much too soon so it now falls on all of our shoulders, the woman i met n the coffee shop in batley, m.m.p.'s, all of us to carry on her work to guard against hatred, intolerance and justice and serve others with dignity and love and that's the best way we can remember jo and all that she stood for.
but last, let me say this, batley and spen will go on to elect a new m.p. but no one can replace a mother. >> andrew mitchell. >> mr. speaker, today we mourn the terrible loss of our friend and colleague jo, so tragically murdered as she went about her constituency duties. a life had been taken of a truly exceptional woman whose goodness and passionate dedication to humanitarian values have inspired us all. i knew her as a friend but how unbearable it must be for those who mourn her as a daughter, sister, husband, and above all as their beloved mom who they used to visit for tea each week in. i first met jo 10 years ago in london when we marched against injustice in darfur. and on two visits to darfur
where she helped develop a central humanitarian role. the leader of the opposition as he then was, and i stayed there with her and other humanitarian workers and witnessed her crucial role for oxban in supporting women and children and for securing water for thousands of refugees in the camps. she gay me the green wristband. i wear it still to ensure that we remember the desperate people caught up in what president bush rightly described as a genocide. and it is among her many friends and colleagues in the international humanitarian and development family, all around the world, of which she was such a respected and experienced member, that she will be mourned and remembered as a staunch friend of the most desperate and deprived in our world and as a campaigner
against injustice. when she entered this house just 13 short months ago, she rapidly used her deep knowledge to champion the dispossessed. she was but, restlessly dismissive from party political maneuvering, which she thought of a barrier to progress. making common core with a crusty old tory, she and i became friends. she was brave. her energy and effectiveness work and inspiration. we invited ourselves to tea with the russian ambassador in his residence. with charm, but distribute determination.
i do not believe the russian investor will easily forget that visit. i believe there many things that joe with like us to remember this afternoon. may i mentioned just to? she would not want this file and unspeakable act to affect the ourtionship we have with constituents. all of us take advice of our local police. asnkfully, these acts are infrequent as they are disgraceful. syria, where the been ruined, have
while the international community has shown itself to be effective. jo as a friend and colleague, but most of all, as two glorioushose children will have to chart the quizzes of life without the support of their mom. harriet harman? >> thank you. i got to know joe after the 20 10th general election which she chaired for four years. she would regularly burst into my office with the extraordinary energy that she had and tell me everything they were doing to give women a bigger voice in the party and so many of the labor women in the chamber today who were elected in 2015 and are so
lost. mourning her son,ong after she had her she came to give me one of her regular briefings, and of course the baby came tooo. i remember it because she literally did not stop kissing it throughout the meeting. feminism, her solidarity with other women was a thread that ran through her and all her .ork in her community she always sets me that her children were her priority above everything. there was no dividing line between her political heart and her motherly heart.
her children will go up to know how amazing she was. >> what an amazing woman. she was clearly a remarkable person. these are not my comments, although i clearly concur with them. they are some of the many comments i heard from constituents and those who i heard over the weekend. conscious of time and wanting to ensure that her friends have the opportunity to speak, i make countryrt but heartfelt should. just over one year ago. it was not long after the general election.
on arriving at the studio, i was taken to the makeup room where jo was already sitting in the chair. needless to say, i had to spend a lot longer in the chair than she did. she greeted me with that wonderful smile that lit her whole face. in that instance, the split second, i knew this was someone i was going to like in obviously . as we recorded the program, it was clear that we agreed on a number of issues. i'm sure the lack of political argument came as a huge but it is ant, to who she was. she got her points across effectively and calmly without the need of talking other --
over other people. when she spoke, people listened. never afraid to stand up to .hose she was also a proud yorkshire woman. painful fory is her. as the floral tributes increase, you could sense the outpouring for jo. on friday, people of all faiths packed in an interview after qualitiesoke of the that outstanding member ahead. described her as a rising star. i think she was a star.
in the speech as we have heard, she talked about how we are far more united and have far more common than the things that divide us. in everything she did, she promoted those values. days, i haveew been amazed at the kindness and media,pressed on social letters, cards, and conversations. hashtag have inspired people, even those who have opposing views. i know i'm not alone in saying that i will miss her. i will miss her compassion, herm determination, her conviction, but above all, i will miss her
smile. she was brilliant. my only regret is that i really knew her for one year. >> jo and i have been friends for 12 years. she used to use my cupboard as a wardrobe. runningever forget her around in her cycling gear and shouting something about her latest campaign. she often brought her children into the office, and if i were lucky, i would get a dinosaur drawing. there are wonderful kids. cox is ar of joe co
national tragedy. her family have lost a wife, mother, sister. neverarless jo cox stopped fighting for what is right. she spoke truth to power. sheiks of the fight the best values of our party and country. compassion, community, solidarity, and internationalism. she put her convictions to work for everyone she touched. for the wretched of syria, for the victims of violence and injustice everywhere. is assassinated for what she was and what she stood for. death 50 darkness of her was come the shining light of her legacy. let us build a politics of hope, not fear. respect, not eight.
her reaction.gine she would have responded with -- she and with understood that rhetoric has consequences. insecurity, fear, and anger are used to light the fuse, and explosion is inevitable. in the deeply moving tribute that was made last thursday, the british people were urged to unite against the hatred that killed jo. rhetoric that twists
to the loathing of others. we must stand up for something better because of someone better. in the name of jo cox all that is decent, we must not let this affect our democracy. this is our time to honor the legacy of the proud yorkshire lad who dedicated her life to the, good and was so cruelly taken away from us. x, we love you until salute you. we shall never forget you. >> jo cox was a politician that spanned continents and political parties. with her death, we have lost a part of advocate.
she held her surgery for 14 years in the library and exchanged letters with jo while she was still in school. like all of us, she has been shocked to her tragedy. she will mourn the loss of an outstanding friend in politics. as family will mourn her irreplaceable. talent, a woman of whose voice may not be extinguished, but whose voice will not be forgotten.
this will be the hardest speech i ever give. however, it was not difficult to write. there is so much i want to say. jo cox was the very best of us. she may well have been small, but she packed a punch. she came into this place with such passion and energy. from the very start, she had a quality about what she was here to achieve. she was not going to waste any time getting on with it. she knew that those counting on her could not wait. her experiences working in some of the most dangerous places of the world uphold it the principles of human rights and reflected her character. it meant that when she spoke, people listened. she was not afraid to say it, and had a vision of the world taken from the one
us. she would work across the benches and work in the most collegiate of ways. i remember, i was an active and telling gus, every day you are mp, you can make a difference. no one embodied that more than her. with friends and colleagues, she bouncing againt th family. whip,her friend and which could be a difficult balance to strike, but it wasn't. that's not to say it wasn't difficult to be her whip. she managed to reconcile the hero of our movement with being
incredibly down-to-earth. to hear her speak to know her roots. i, like all of us, will remember her in many different ways. -- sheuded to the fact put the front bench opposite. i would not be at all surprised if they became increasingly nervous when they began to realize how fermentable she was. in thealso remember jo voting bobbies with the cycling kit. i remember the kids recently having chickenpox, and i will remember regional news calling for the newly elected mp and when one of her kids lost her shoes, which she had to retrieve
all the hope for -- before starting the day. for those of us to have the honor of her company, we will be eternally grateful for the treasured memories and the chance to all be together one last time. someone told me they will et,ember her as a com burning bright and getting off sparks of light and energy. mr. speaker, she was the heart and soul of these benches, and we're heartbroken. we will miss her every day. she inspired us all. i swear we will do everything in our power to make her and her family incredibly proud. >> thursday, united kingdom citizens float whether to remain
in the european union. we will simulcast the coverage live.-- >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, mark price with the economic policy institute joins us to discuss the new report, look at income inequality in all 50 states. then, a former republican congressman and presidential candidate, ron paul, will be on to talk about gun laws and offer 2016pinion on the presidential campaign. the, a correspondent to wall street journal will discuss
this missile of donna trump campaign manager. join the discussion. up this morning on c-span, the u.s. commission on civil rights meets on transgender protections. democrats talk to reporters on gun violence legislation. chair federal reserve janet yellen delivers the bank's monetary policy report to congress. we will have her testimony before the taking committee live at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. >> you realize, this is only that i would not only love to do, but something that could be really different from the kinds of folks that have written about mcarthur in the past. what his real significance was, what his virtue was that made
him one of those adored figures in american history, but also, what were his flaws and the things that made him in many ways unpleasant and even hated. >> sunday night, arthur herman looks the life of douglas macarthur in his book. future moree therly often than he saw present. whether it was america's role in asia, the rice of china, the split between china and the soviet union, but also perhaps the fate of american domestic politics. , sunday night at 8:00 eastern. > u.s. commission of civil
rights voted> 6-2 concerning the protection of transient or students. the letter was in response to a new north carolina law that andires strai state employees students to use restrooms that match their biological sex. >> i would like to make a motion that we approve the letter. is there a second? a second. let me read this and then we can discuss it.
everyone has received a copy in advance. you have in front of you. the commission on civil rights supports the guidance on the section for transgender students under title ix of the amendment act of 1972. states, no person in the united states shall, on the basis of sex they slated from participation in the denied benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or two but he receiving financial assistance through the department of education's office for civil rights and department of justice issued guidance stating that for the purposes of title ix and its implementing regulation quote the departments treated students
gender identity as the students sack's end quote. to ensure nondiscrimination the basis of sex transgender students must be allowed to participate in activities use facilities and access housing consistent with their gender identities. under title ix and the family educational rights and privacy act the school is updated to protect transgender students privacy related to their transgender status to schools or work hard to provide a safe and non-discriminatory environment and when harassment based on gender identity is discovered quote must take from too effective to steps to prevent there is membranous reoccurrence and as appropriate remedy is it that end quote. the guidance was bored by the department of education at the department of justice reasonably interpret sex discrimination to necessarily include gender identity discrimination for purposes of compliance with title ix. it's a logical outgrowth for voluntary resolutions into which both the departments come into which both departments have
entered into with prior litigation page also serves as the correct foundation for the recent decision handed down by the fourth circuit that the departments interpretation of its own regulations regarding restroom access by transgender individuals. on april 18, 2016 u.s. commission on civil rights by majority vote strongly condemn the recent state laws and proposals targeting members of the bisexual and transgender community for discrimination including north carolina's legislation forcing transgender people to use public top rooms based on sex and not according to their gender identities. the state laws attempting to delphi the protections of the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment to individuals based on their gender identity jeopardizes the dignity and physical safety of transgender people to today we support the departments joint guidance on this issue. commission chair martin castro stated quote transgender students at the same rights as
other students. transgender students present a threat to no one. the students are our children or their schools must not be allowed to strip them of their dignity and a first aid failed to afford the students their rights it is incumbent upon the federal government to intervene and protect those children that end quote. the commission therefore stands with the department of education of department of justice as they ensure the promise of fair educational opportunities for every student regardless of their gender or transgender status. i'm happy to discuss this. any questions? commissioner herat? >> i don't have a question. >> ahead with discussion. >> i plan to vote against the motion. to put it plainly i believe the department of education is out of control on this issue. its pronouncements are in no way tethered to actual law. now the commission has followed suit and i believe this is an example of government aircraft pushing their own agenda and not title ix.
the recently announced transgender guides require schools across the country to allow an tight ends, go boys who say they psychologically identifies girls to share toilets locker rooms and shower facilities with girls. it also requires that girls athletic teams allow with anatomically -- in certain circumstances to participate. congress intended no such thing when it passed title ix in 1972. that statute or habits sex discrimination by federally funded schools colleges universities plain and simple. makes an exception or separate living facilities which was crystallized in a rule promulgated in 1975 which explicitly authorizes separate toilet locker room and shower facilities-based on sex, actual sex not the sex that they desire to be and not the gender a different con sept.
to make a claim back in the 1970s the 92nd congress intended the american people understood title line to require schools to allow anatomical boys who viewed themselves as rosy as girls facilities would have been viewed as absurd. indeed the department of education does not claim that. instead the departments argument insofar as it has one is that they just noticed that a 1990 -- 1989 case requires this result but no it doesn't. price white house concerned woman who allegedly had not then promoted because she was perceived as too aggressive. the core reason that if a male employee was the same aggressive personality would have been promoted than she then she has indeed discriminate against an account of her sex within the meaning of title vii. that's fine but let's apply that same line of reasoning in connection with the transgender guidance. it doesn't work to pose a school who is a student who is anatomically male but identifies as female. with that student a permit to
use the girls facilities if that student had been in factory girl yes of course but that's different from pricewaterhouse because title ix and its implementing regulations explicitly permits schools to provide separate facilities based on sex. more importantly note that the same, applying that same logic would also prove too much considering the case of an anatomically male student who was identified as male. still true that if he had been female he would be allowed to use the girls facilities. we know that under the regulation, under the statutes separate facilities-based on sex are permitted. that takes the case outside
pricewaterhouse situation. now note what i'm not saying here first i'm not saying a transgender student needs to conform to anybody's expectation with regard to sex. that is what freedom is all about but i'm also not saying that title ix requires schools to have separate facilities-based on sex and by that again i mean anatomical and biological sex for locker rooms and shower purposes. they are not required to do that but the statute simply authorizes them to do so given that sex discrimination was exclusively for for bid and the talmud such an explicit authorization was necessary to allow the ordinary traditional separate facilities for the school district is well within its rights to choose to have unisex facilities or choose to have facilities-based on gender rather than sex so if they want to do it they can. what is inappropriate here is for the department of education to mandate that they must do it
in a particular way. the schools are authorized under the actual title ix properly interpreted to do it any number of ways and sometimes that is what's necessary, the kind of flexibility that we need. sometimes in a particular school particular school district particular students particular transgender student you would want to allow that student to remain with that students on anatomical sex group. maybe they're not having him a hard time. maybe the opposite sex group would be. maybe both groups would get that student our time in the best they could do is to provide a private facility like the faculty restroom or the faculty locker room but under the transgender guidance that flexibility disappears and instead one-size-fits-all. i very much object to this. i believe that's not authorized by title ix and i believe that this is the case of an out-of-control executive agency usurping the role of congress to make policy.
title ix does not allow for this. >> the alleged evolution and change your really isn't that. think oftentimes we see that how we interpret something today may be something different than what we interpret it to be in the past but this is not an idea that has popped up in the department of justice and the department of education or even hour -- because we were probably out of those agencies in condemning the north carolina and other laws than we did this in april. but if you really look back there is a history of this issue being addressed not only by the eoc and i know commissioner kirsanow had raised a point that should be applied here but a number of cases settled by the