tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN2 February 22, 2016 8:30pm-12:01am EST
>> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the united kingdom of votes on june 23 to decide whether they remain a member of the european union. we will hear from british prime minister david cameron's on c-span2. after that, remarks from homeland security jay johnson. >> secretary of state john kerry testifies about his departments $50.1 billion budget request for 2017. we have live coverage starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span 33 veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonnell testifies about the president 2017 ba budget virginia budget requests.
>> every election will remind us how important it is for and citizens to be informed. >> there's so much more that c-span does to make sure that people know what is going on. >> and british prime minister -- mr. cameron said leaving europe would threaten our economic and national security. he spoke at the house of commons after some members of his own conservative party said they would vote to leave the eat you.
from london, this is to our. >> order. statements, the prime minister. >> i like to make a statement on the agreement to reach in brussels last week. first let me say word about the migration crisis which was also discussed at the european council. we agreed we needed to press ahead with strengthening the eat use external borders to ensure non- refugees are returned promptly and disrupt the criminal gains between greece and turkey for putting so many people's lives at risk. britain will contribute to and step up their contribution all these areas. joining prints place in europe, i have spent the last nine months setting out for areas where we need reform and meeting with all of the 27 eu heads of state and government to reach an agreement that delivers concrete reforms in all four areas. let me take each in turn.
first, reddish jobs and bring a dish business depends on being able to trade with europe on a level playing field. we want new protections for economy, safeguard the pound, promote our promote our industry including our financial services industry, protect reddish taxpayers from the casa problems in -- and to ensure we have a full say over the rules of the single market while remaining outside the eurozone. we got all of those things. we have not just permanently protected the pound and our right to keep it but we have ensured that we cannot be discriminated against. responsibility for supervising this financial stability of the u.k. will always remain in the hands of the bank of england. we ventured the british taxpayers will never be made to bailout countries in the euro zone. we major the eurozone cannot act as a black to undermine the integrity of the free-trade single market. we guaranteed that british business will never face discrimination for outside the
eurozone. for example, our financial services firms, our number one services export employing over 1,000,000 people can can never be forced to relocate inside the eurozone if they want to undertake complex traits and euros just because they're based in the u.k. these protections are not just set out in a legally binding agreement, all 28 member states also declare the treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections for the u.k. as an economy that is inside the eu but outside the eurozone. we also agreed a new mechanism to enable non- eurozone agencies are in a battle zone to be triggered by one country alone. of course none of these protections would be available if we were to leave the eu. second, we want a commitment to make europe more competitive, creating jobs and making british families more financially secure. again, we got them.
the single marketing key areas that will help britain. in services, services, making it easier for thousands of u.k. service based companies like it firms to trade in your. in capital so u.k. startups can access more sources of finance for their business and an energy allowing new supplies into her energy market the meaning lower energy bills for families across country. we have secured commitments to complete trade and investment agreements with the fastest growing and most dynamic economies around the world. including the usa, japan, and, and china, as well as our commonwealth, india, new zealand and australia. they could add billions of pounds of thousands of jobs every year. of course they build on the deal we are ready have with 53 countries around the world. through which britain which britain has benefited from the negotiated muscle that comes as part of the world's largest trading block. across country after country
they said of course they could sign trade deals with britain. they also said that their priority would be trade deals with the eu. the eu deals would be bigger and better and a deal with britain would not be possible until we settled opposition outside the eu. so for those members who care about signing new trade deals outside the eu, we would be looking at years and years of delay. last but not least on competitiveness, one of the biggest frustrations is the red tape and brock are say. we agreed their old not be targets to cut the total burden of eu regulation on business. this builds on the progress we have already made with the commission already cutting the new initiatives by 80%. it means the cost of eu redtape will be going down not up. if we were to leave the eu we would ultimately achieve a deal with full access to the single market like norway, we would still be subject to all of the eu's regulation when selling into your.
there is no say over the rule. as the former on the norwegian conservative party said if you want to run europe you must be in europe, if you want to be run by europe, feel free to join norway and the european economic era. third, we wanted wanted to reduce the very high level of migration from within the eat you i preventing the abusive free movement and preventing our welfare system acting as a magnet for people to come to our country. after the hard work of the home secretary we have secured new powers against criminals of other countries including powers to stop them from coming here in the first place and powers to deport them if they are already here. we agreed longer reentry bands for people and shared marriages and the into the ridiculous situation where eu nationals can avoid british immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the eu.
this agreement broke new ground with the european trade source agreeing to reverse the decision of the european court of justice. we also secured a breakthrough agreement for britain to reduce the unnatural withdraw our benefit system across europe. we have already major the eu migrants cannot claim the new universal credit while looking for work. those coming from the eu have not found work within six months cannot be required to leave. at this council we agreed eu migrants working in britain can -- this would apply to first new claims and then to existing claimants from the existing start of 2020. we also established a new emergency brake so that eu migrants would have to wait for years until you have full access to our benefits. mr. speaker, people said it was impossible to achieve real change in this area. a for your restriction on benefits was completely out of the question, yet that is what
we have done. once activated, the emergency brake will be in place for seven years. so it begins next year it will be operating in 2024 and there'll be people who will not be getting full benefits until 2028. all along we have said that people should not be able to come here and get access to our benefit system straight away. no more something for nothing and that is what we have achieved. now mr. speaker i'm sure the discussion of our welfare and immigration will be intense. let me make this point. no country outside the eu has agreed full access to the single market without accepting pain into the eu and accepting free movement. in addition, our new safeguards lapse if we vote to leave the
eu. so we might end up with free movement but without these new protections. the fourth area where we wanted to make significant changes was to protect our country from further european political integration and to increase powers for our national parliaments. ever since we joy, europe has been on the path to something called ever closer union. it means a political union. we have never liked it, we have it, we have never wanted it. now britain will be preeminently an eight legally excluded from it. the text says that the treaties will be changed to make their and i quote, the treaty references to ever close the union do not apply to the united kingdom. so mr. speaker as a result of this negotiation, britain can never be part of a european superstate. the council also greens that the ever close union that has been -- does not offer legal basis for extending the scope of any provisions of the treaties or eu
secondary legislation. people use to talk about a multispeed europe, now we have a agreement, not only are different countries able to travel at different speeds, they are ultimately able to head to different destinations too. i would argue that is a fundamental change in the way that this organization works. we have already passed a referendum act to make sure that no powers can be handed to brussels without the explicit consent of the british people in a referendum. now that brussels comes up the legislation they do not want we can get together with other parliaments and block it with a red card. we have a new mechanism, finally to enforce the principle that as far as possible power should sit here and in westminster not in brussels. every year the
european union now has to go through the powers to exercise and workout which are no longer needed and should be returned to nationstate. in recent years we've also seen attempt to bypass by bringing forward legislation under a different label. for example, there are attempts to interfere with the way the u.k. authorities handle fraud. they would try it under the guise of eu budget legislation. the agreement that last week canceled insurers this can never happen again. mr. speaker, the secured will be legally binding in international law and will be deposited as a treaty at the un. without the agreement of -- as i said, all 28 member states are also clear that the treaties will be changed to incorporate the protections for the u.k. as an economy outside the eurozone and our permanent exclusion for ever close union. our special status means britain can have the best of both worlds. we will be be in the parts of europe that work for us, influencing us that affect
us that are in the driving seat of the world single biggest market and with the ability to take action to keep our people say. we will be out of the parts of europe that do not work for us. out of the euro, out of the eurozone, out of the no border area and permanently legally protected against of ever being part of an ever closer union. there's still more to do. i am the first to say that there are still many ways in which this organization needs to improve. the task of reforming europe does not end with last week's agreement. with the special status the settlement gives us i do believe the time has come to fulfill another vital commitment this government made and that is to hold a referendum [applause]. mr. speaker, i am today under
the acted to propose the british people decide to decide a future in europe on tuesday the 23rd of june. there's a report setting up the new settlement the remit is negotiated, this would feels the duty to publish information set out in section six of the european union referendum act and as a cabinet on saturday the government's position will be to recommend britain remains in a reformed european union [applause]. mr. speaker, this is a vital decision for the future of our country. i believe we should also be clear that it is a final decision. the idea has been put for that if the country votes to leave we could have a second renegotiation and perhaps another referendum. mr. speaker, i went on the irony that some people who wanted to vote to leave want to use a leave vote to remain.
[inaudible] that should approach also ignores more profound points of our democracy, diplomacy and legality. this is a straight democratic decision. staying in or leaving, leaving, and no government can ignore that. having a second renegotiation followed by second referendum referendum is not on the ballot paper. for prime minister to ignore this expressed will of the british people to leave the eu would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic. on the diplomacy, the idea that other european countries would be ready to start a second negotiation is for the birds. many are under under pressure for what they have already agreed.
then there's the legality and i want to spell out this point for the house carefully. it it is important. if the british people vote to leave there's only one way to bring that about, that is to trigger article 50 of the treaty and begin the process of exit. the british people would rightly expect that should start straight away. let me be absolutely clear about how this works, it triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. at the end of this. , if no agreement is in place than the exit is automatic and less every one of the 27 other eu member states agrees to a delay. we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to rejoin, it is a process for leaving. sadly mr. speaker visited a number of couples who have begun divorce proceedings but i do not know any who have begun divorce proceedings in order to renew their marriage vows.
[applause]. let me explain. i want to explain what happens with section 50. we should also be clear what would happen if that deal to leave without him within two years. our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years were up. our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse. this cannot be described as anything other than risk, uncertainty and a leap in the dark that of hard-working people in our country. this is not a theoretical question it is a real decision about people's lives. when it comes to people's jobs it is simply not enough to say it will be a right on be a right on the night and we'll work it out. i believe in the works to come we need to properly face up to
the economic consequences of a choice to leave. mr. speaker, i believe britain will be stronger, safer, better safer, better off by remaining in a reformed european union. stronger because we can play a leading role and one of the world's largest organizations from within, helping to to make the big decisions on trade and security that determine our future. safer, because we can work with our european partners to fight cross-border crime and terrorism. a better up because british business will have full access of the free-trade single market bringing jobs, investment or prices. there'll be much debate about sovereignty and rightly so. to me what matters most is the power to get things done for our people, country, for future. leaving the eat you made briefly make you feel more sobering but what it actually give us more power, more influence in a greater ability to get things done?
if we leave the eat you, will we have the power to stop our businesses being discriminated against? no. will we will we have the power to insist that your pink country share with us their border information so we know what terrace and criminals are doing in your question right now. will we have more influence as the decision that affect the prosperity and security of british families? no we won't. we are a great country and whatever choice we make, we will still be great. i believe the choice is between being an even greater britain inside a reformed eat you are greatly been to the unknown. the challenge of facing the west today are genuinely threatening. putin, aggression in the east. extremism to the south. in mind view. in mind you this is no time to divide the west. when trading challenges our way of life, values and freedoms, this freedoms, this is a time for strength in numbers. let man by saying this, i am not standing for reelection. i have no other agenda than what
is best for our country. i am standing here telling you what i think. my responsibility as prime minister is to speak plainly about what i believe is right for our country. that is what i will do every day for the next four months. i. i commend the statement to the house. >> thank you mr. speaker like to thank the prime minister. it honestly took long time to write it because i received it at a minutes pass through this afternoon. the people of britain now face an historic chase from the 23rd of june of whether to remain part of the european union or to leave. it is now in the hands of the people of this country to decide that issue. the labour party and the movement are overwhelmingly will
stay in. because we believe that the european union is for investment, jobs, protections where workers and we are convinced that the vote remains is in the best interest of the people. in the 21st century, as it country in a continent, and indeed as a human race we face challenging issues. climate change, how to address the power of global corporations? how to ensure they pay their taxes? how to tackle cyber crime and terrorism? how we trade fairly and protect jobs and pay in an era of globalization? how we address the causes of the huge refugee movement across the world? how we adapt to a world where people of all countries move more frequently to live, work, and retire? all of? all of these issues are serious, pressing, and self-evidently can
only be solved by international cooperation. the european union will be how we as a country meet those challenges. therefore mr. speaker, it is more than disappointing to the prime minister's steel and the failed to address a single one of those issues. last week, like him i was in brussels meeting with heads of government leaders of european socialist parties. one of them said to me. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
[inaudible] if you care to think for a moment about what is going on. one person said to me and i thought it was quite profound, he said we are discussing the future of a continent. one english has reduced it to the issue of taking away benefits from workers and children. some reality, is that the negotiation has not been about the challenges facing our continent, neither has it in about the issues facing the people of britain. indeed it has been a theatrical sideshow about trying to appease or failing to appease half of the prime minister's own conservative party. not to say that there has not been some worthwhile changes. the red card system to strengthen the hands of national parliament is something that we
have long backed. indeed it was in the labor manifesto the last general election. it was not was not actually in the conservative manifesto of the election but -- we would also welcome the symbolic amendment britain's long-standing decision not to join the euro has unsettled and accepted a long long time ago. but mr. speaker we see the influence of party funders on the prime minister's special -- now for britain but for the city of london interests. it is the same incentive that caused his friends the victor to rush to europe with an army of lawyers to print oppose any
legislation or banker bonuses. it is necessary to protect the rights of nine euros on states but not to undermine eu wide efforts to regulate the financial sector, including the boardroom stopping in the city of london. labor stands for a different approach. that is why are members of the european parliament are opposing the dangerous elements of the very secretive trances lamp take trade investment which threatened to undermine national sovereignty, push the privatization of public services, drive drive down workers and consumers and environment and public health. mr. speaker, human rights ought to be part of the treaty treaty and indeed i believe it should be a feature of all trade treaties. then there is the emergency brake. we we support the principle of fair contribution of social security. however, does the evidence not back up the claim that and work benefits are significant offer workers who come to britain from the european union?
the changes of the prime minister do nothing to address the real challenges of low pay and britain, undercutting of wage breaks an industrywide pay agreement. they won't put a a penny in the pockets of workers in britain nor will they stop the grotesque exploitation of many migrant workers or reduce migration. will the prime minister tell us what discussion he had to get european rules in place to protect the going rate and to stop agency bring a cheap labor to undercut workers in britain while exploiting the migrant force. did he speak to other eu leaders about the so-called swedish termination which threatened to undermine one of the key achievements of the last government by allowing unscrupulous employers to use temporary to undercut other workers. these would have been positive and worthwhile discussions, to take a late pay, reduce benefit
benefit costs and protect workers. we must on all sides be clear that britain has benefited from migration. from eu workers coming into work to work in our industry and in our public service to fill gaps. for example, the thousands of doctors and nurses who work in our national health service, saving lives every day there are at work. european union has to give protection to workers in britain. it was labor that made sure that britain eu membership gave workers rights. for minimum paid leave, protection on working time rights, paid maternity paid maternity and paternity leave. equal pay, anti-discrimination law and per section for the workforce when companies change ownership. it was labor working partnership with unions across europe that made sure the prime minister's attempt to diminish workers rights was kept off the agenda of the eu negotiation. labor has supported and child
benefits as a reasonable amendment. we also accepted migrants until 2020 so have stability of income. the prime minister has things that we welcome but it is largely irrelevant the choice facing the british people. not one single element of significant impact in the case that we are making to stay inches we welcome the welcome the fact that the theatrical sideshow is over. so that we can now get on with making the real case, the real case which will be put by my friends who will be leading our campaign. we believe the eu is a vital framework for european trade and cooperation in the 21st century. to remain the inclusive people not only what the you deliver us today but as a framework for which we can achieve much more in the future.
but to deliver these progressive reforms that i have refer to need to work with our partners in europe to achieve them. therefore, we must ensure that we remain a member. that is the case we are going to be making for eight europe that is socially cohesive, a europe that shares the benefits of wealth and prosperity of amongst all of its citizens. that is the case where making. as a labor party, is a great a great union movement of this country and we look forward to that public debate. >> .. for his contribution. he and i disagree on many, many things, about economic policy, about social policy, about welfare policy. indeed, we even disagree about the approach we should take within europe as he's just demonstrated in his response. but we do both agree about one thing which is that britain should be in there fighting for a good deal for our country. i worry a little for the right honorable gentleman, because he's going to be accused of all sorts of things, some of them fair, some of them unfair, but i think if he takes this course, he'll be accused of being a member of the establishment, and that would be the unfairest of
all. [laughter] what he said about the deal, i want to make two points about why i think, actually, he should really welcome the deal. the first is that it does actually implement, as far as i can see, almost every pledge on europe in the labour manifesto, and i'm looking at the former leader. they've pledged to complete the single market. they pledge to offer budget discipline. they say we will insure e.u. rules, protect the interests of non-euro members. absolutely right. and they went on and said this: people coming to britain from the e.u. to look for work are expected to contribute to our economy and to our society so we will secure reforms to immigration and social security rules. so i hope they will welcome the things in this agreement that we have. it also says, and i quote: we will -- well, i thought, you know -- we would work to strengthen -- [laughter] well, i'm just reminding my new friends what they said at the election. [laughter] they said this: we will work to strengthen the influence of
national parliaments over european legislation by arguing for a red card mechanism for member states. excellent. another thing that has been achieved. where i think the right honorable gentleman was unfair is he said that this deal was really all about britain and not about anyone else. i would point out the slovakian prime minister has said, good, the myth of our ever closer union has fallen. the hungarian prime minister has said the u.k. managed to put an end to the practice of creeping power, power withdrawal from national member states. the former president of the commission said this: the real consequence of the summit is an extraordinarily important, brussels has officially enshrined a multi-speed europe. so this is beneficial to europe as well as to britain. where i disagree profoundly with the right honorable gentleman is i think these trade deals are good for britain, and the sooner we do the deal with america, the better. i think he's wrong about financial services. there are more people working in financial services in our
country outside the city of london than inside the city of london. and crucially, what the single market means is that with one establishment in britain, you can trade throughout the european union. lose that and you'llç see jobs going from britain to other countries. let me end on a note of consensus. look, labour government standing here, conservative government standing here, we've all had our difficulties with europe. we've all wanted to get the budget down. we've all found because of our love for this house of commons and our love of british democracy we sometimes find this process trying, but at the end of the day, we've always known when it comes to our economy and our prosperity and our security, we're better fighting from the inside. ..
guaranteeing access, deregulating and engaging in major trade use. and is not the politics of fear to point out that those who advocate a no vote do not seem to know what a no vote means. they continue to imply that somehow the benefits flow from europe in terms of jobs, investment and security will somehow continue to come here when they have swept away the obligations that previous
british governments have always accepted. >> i am grateful my right hon. friend says -- it is interesting looking at what the foreign newspapers said. spanish paper has said british exceptionalism reached new heights yesterday. no public company accumulate so many in europe. we have a different status in europe which has become more special with changes we have made. the point my friend makes is absolutely right. i recognize there are disadvantageds from being in the european union, but i can look the british people in the eye and say this is what it is going to be like if we stay in because of the deals we have done. people inviting us to leave have got to spell out what the consequences of leaving our. the absolute loans are in this is no country has been able to get full access to the single
market without accepting either paying into the e.u. or accepting free movement. if you don't want to accept those two things you have to start -- you are not going to get as good a trade and business position as we have today so people who want to leave have got to start making up their mind. you went to norway deal, switzerland dealer candidate deal dq i don't mind which deal you go for but you have to tell people because they deserve an answer. >> may i begin by thanking the prime minister preventing the statement, the referendum choice before the electorate is a huge one which will define our relationship with the rest of europe and between the nations of the united kingdom. scotland is a european nation. we will campaign positively to remain within the e.u.. hopefully the prime minister can confirm that he will reject
project fear and make a positive case for remaining part of a reforming european union. it is important to be part of the largest markets in the world and influence rules, it matters we can cooperate with shared challenges from security, for workers and citizens of rights. we should not forget the lessons of european history, mr. speaker and not turn our backs on european neighbors who have held at this time to deal with huge challenges. mr. speaker, public opinion in scotland by majority supports membership of the european union. every single scottish mp supports remaining in the e.u. almost every member of the scottish parliament, and one scottish ndp. does the prime minister have any idea what the consequences would be of scotland being taken out
of the e.u.? i want scotland and the rest of the u.k. to remain within the european union. if we are forced out of the e.u. and i am certain public in scotland will demand a referendum and scottish independence. >> i can confirm a positive case based on britain being stronger, safer, better off. this is a choice and it is important to set out the choice and the alternatives to the british people because it is one of the most important issues people have in their lifetime. i won't let anyone stepping to the dark, properly thinking through what the consequences
are. brussels can be frustrating but don't forget what brought this institution, the frustrating talks, you look around the table and think about how countries killed each other for so long and dialogue and the action we take to get there is positive. this is one you cave vote. >> my right hon. friend has just spoken with national parliament, democracy and sovereignty. in the bloomberg speech he made clear he regarded national parliament as being the root of our democracy. yesterday he referred to the delusion of sovereignty. my right hon. friend please explain and repudiate that statement, specifically in relation to the question before us, in relation to our parliament and our democracy and the making of our laws which at
this moment in time and the the european community's act are made by a majority of other countries, are introduced by the commission and enforced by a court of justice. the only way of getting out of that returning our democracy is to leave the european union. >> i have a huge respect for my hon. friend who has campaigned on this issue for many years and the one thing he will welcome is the we are now allowing the british people ageless on whether to stay in or leave the european union. this parliament is sovereign. we have chosen to join the european union and we can choose to leave the european union. let me explain what i meant by saying it would be in many cases the illusion of sovereignty. we have safeguards of british banks, british businesses cannot be discriminated against if we stay in the european union, but not in the euro.
were we to leave, we would not have that protection. they could not discriminate against us. they would discriminate against us. in that way we might feel more sovereign but it would be an illusion of sovereignty because we would not have the power to protect the businesses that create jobs in the country. despite assurances it is worth remembering this referendum is about -- the future of the country, not the future of divided conservancy. it is not just about brit naps place in the european union but its place in the world. president obama has been crystal clear is that if britain were to leave the european union weakened, not strengthen the special relationship. the chinese are mystified the we are risking exodus from the european union, that it
threatened in the future what stands tall in beijing, and other global capitals, britain must continue to stand for all in our own european neighborhood. >> the right hon. gentleman is right that we should make this decision ourselves as a sovereign nation and the sovereign people but it is worth listening to our friends and what they think is better for our country. i have to say all the leaders and politicians i have met around the world i can't think of any friends, australia, new zealand, canada, america, who want us to leave the e.u.. the only person who might want us to leave the e.u. is vladimir putin and i don't think that is someone -- as for what the right hon. gentleman and my former colleague said about the needs of this referendum, we are implementing the 2010 manifesto
by holding it. [shouting] >> my right hon. friend. to explain to the house after the committee, exactly what way this deal return sovereignty over any field of lawmaking to these houses of parliament? >> this deal brings back some welfare power, and brings back some immigration powers, brings back other powers, but more than that because is an ever closer union it means the direction of the european -- taking power away from this country cannot happen in future. to those who worry, people do worry that somehow we vote to remain in, the consequence could
be more action in brussels to change the arrangement we have, we have a vote in the house of commons, no power can be passed from britain to brussels with a referendum of the british people so we have amended deal, special statement, a chance to make sure we build on what we have, protect our people and that is the choice we should make. >> ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, let me thank the prime minister for implementing parts of the 2015 -- i want to go, mr. speaker, to the big picture question which is how this influence is our national interests and i call the prime minister on his statement which is the question, by being a member of the european union we don't always get our own way but as he said to the right hon. member, all the major issues whether it is trade or climate
change or terrorism and security, what does he believe? we have more influence in the european union or outside? mr. speaker, surely the answer is inside the european union. not outside. that is why i passionately believe we must remain in the european union. >> grateful to the right hon. gentleman for what he says and i can't promise any part of the labor manifesto but glad to have been here. i absolutely agree, the big picture is this. when it comes to getting things done in the world that can keep people safe in our country, a big deal on climate change, do we get more because we are in the e.u.? yes. making sure we have sanctions against iran that really work and getting to the nuclear program do we do that through the e.u. and other bodies? absolutely. making sure we stand up to russian aggression in the ukraine, we have been the
linchpin between the european union and the united states of america for making sanctions count. if we had been outside the european union during that period we would be waiting at the end of the phone to find out what the decision was going to be. instead we were driving them between europe and america and that is how we get things done for our people. >> mr. speaker, according to the web site, the lecture in tomorrow's times being written by chris hopkins, on behalf of organizations across the u.k. supposedly wishing for us to remain, chris hopkins is apparently a civil servant. could the prime minister tell us who is chris hopkins, what department does he work for and what authority does he have to campaign for the remainder of it? >> i can ask simply he is a civil servant working in number 10 and his authority comes from me. he is doing an excellent job.
the reason is this is not a free for all. the government has a clear view. the government's view is we should remain an accord with the european union and the civil service is able to support the government in that role. members of parliament, ministers are able to make their own decisions but the government is not holding back and hanging back from this. we have a full throated you we should put forward in front of the british people so they can make a choice. >> i am tempted to ask if the prime minister thinks blondes have more fun but i realized -- whether he remembers the analysis his own government did in 2014 about the european arrest warrant and its conclusions that the european arrest warrant act as a deterrent for offenders coming to this country can he point this out to the treasury
secretary? let me ask the home secretary to work on all the other reasons why britain is safer and more secure in the european union? >> the open arrest warrant is a case in point. if you have this concern about sovereignty, concerns about the arrest warrant, look what happens in practice. in 2005 terrorists tried to bomb our city for the second time. one of them escaped and was arrested and returned to britain within weeks under european arrest warrant, before that could have taken years. i think we can all see the practical application of these changes keeps us more safe when it comes to this question of fighting terrorism across border crime, obviously people will have different opinions. i would urge people to listen to the head of the former director of am i 5, these are people who know what they speak of and are
very clear these measures help us to stay safe. >> mr. speaker. having spent the best part of recess with the royal marines in the arctic circle i am extremely confident -- i am extremely conscious of the need to ensure that every one of our serving military personnel can vote whether to leave or remain in the upcoming ebitda and referendum. can the prime minister confirm every serving member of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, can he guarantee they will receive their ballot papers in good time and confirm how to ensure that everyone will become free? >> rather jealous. in the arctic circle i can tell
you. they are absolutely the same. absolutely insane as for a general election, plenty of time to put in place the arrangements that she seeks. >> i give credit to the prime minister for delivering a referendum to the british people. he came to the house and argued against a referendum but supported those who believed it was the right thing to do. he will share and know that we are disappointed in these benches. we have control over sovereignty and our borders and finances. what he said today in a statement, quote, is simply not enough for those on this side to say it is all rights and we will work it out. he wants definite fact. on the issue of migrants coming to britain, the united kingdom, when will they be eligible for
benefits? don't tell us he will work out. tell us today, when will they become eligible for any kind of that. >> the phased approach, and no access to benefits to start with. had no access after four years. if i compare that with lack of certainty being offered to those who favor a model like norway or switzerland, or a trade deal like canada, and a purely wto position. we need the answers to that. it is only when we know that that people can make a proper judgment about the security of staying in and dangers of getting out. >> mr. patterson, speak up. >> last week's decision requires >> reporter: to be both irreversible and legally binding. when will the ratification
procedure begin? >> it is already legally binding and irreversible because this is a decision of 28 governments to reach legally binding decision in positive as a legal document that the un so this can only be reversed if all 28 members including the u.k. were to come to a different decision. the documents found very clearly that in two specific areas to changes we need to the treaty on the close of the union and safeguards for businesses and countries outside the euro zone will be put into the treaty as well. >> the mayor of london, the leader of the campaign said yesterday that the -- britain would be able easily negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed because wheat used to run the greatest empire in the world. he invites the man to wake up to the 21st century in which the
european economy is six times larger than the british economy and it took seven years for canada to get a trade deal. does he agree with so much uncertainty in the world economy it would be deeply destructive to increase the risk of british exports, british manufacturers and british jobs. >> where i share the frustration of many of those who question whether we should say, britain does need trade deals to be signed rapidly and we find it frustrating europe is not moving faster. the korean free trade agreement is excellent and we want to push ahead with japan, canada, america, china and because of this document all those things are more likely. wear the right hon. lady has a good point is you can't sign trade deals with other countries until you have determined the nature of your agreement with the e.u. from the outside. that would take two years, does
it take to sign trade deals. the canada deal, in its seventh year and does it put in place and i worried that this is a recipe for uncertainty and risk. businesses would not know what the arrangements are for year after year and british jobs in the country would suffer as a result. >> a pamphlet calling to address the role in the world by a referendum on e.u. membership, may have escaped detection. he will understand why i am delighted that he has provided us an opportunity to resolve this question for a generation. does he agree with me if the country votes to remain we should positively commit to institutions of the european union to assure success, and a grudging tone that so dominated
this course. and equally, the establishment must positively engage with potential decision to leave and the undertaking, reasonable contingency planning now. >> let me make a couple points to my hon. friend. one of the things this renegotiation does is address the principal grudges i think the country has rightly had. too much single currency, too much political union, too much in terms of migration and lack of respect for welfare systems, not enough competitiveness in removing bureaucracy. having dealt with some of these it may yet be possible to make sure we get all things done that suit us. i also agree something the mayor of london said which is we need to make sure that we have high quality british officials in every part of this organization so we can help to drive the
agenda but it is should be settling the issue for a generation. he is also right do we will be publishing the alternatives to membership so people could see what they are and people could see that there are plans that could be made. >> prime minister said there has been great reform in the renegotiation. why the french president said the european union has not run to the united kingdom any special dispensation and the deal was struck and went on to say the prime minister having said the city of london will not have special stages compared to stock exchanges. why is there a difference between what the french president said and what the prime minister is saying? >> the fringe foreign minister said the agreement is recognition, differentiated europe, i have already quoted the hon carian prime minister's
and italian commissioner, and francois hollande that we recognize britain's position, not in the euro zone, and fundamental rights, they are recognizing britain as a special statement. >> the referendum decision is a matter for the british people. does the prime minister recognize and acknowledge concerns from the white house, the pentagon, the state department and international players have already been mentioned, that britain and europe need to stand together in an unsafe world q >> i think my hon. and makes an import point. i don't believe the american view is based simply on the need is easier to make one phone call rather than many. it is on the fact that they believe that britain will be a
stronger partner if it is able to get things done or able to bend to the whim of a country's when it comes to solving a great crisis. we ask how we manage to reduced attacks in somalia or fix problems of libya's border. beacon act unilaterally and there are valuable partnerships in a about the e.u. partnerships are worth a lot too. >> news of the pound slid to its lowest level in seven years on the news did the hon. member joined the leads campaign. are getting a glimpse of the major economic upheaval that could follow if we leave the european union and isn't it a timely reminder that the long-term message of the country should come ahead of party politics for personal ambition? >> what i said to the right hon. gentleman is it is important we
look at the full economic impacts to stay in the e.u. or choosing to leave the e.u. and we will be setting out that approach in weeks and months to come so people can see what the dangers are and the risks and what the case is. >> don't the common agricultural and fishing policies do damage to domestic producers and the colossal deficit, we always run with threats to the e.u. with trade surfaces to the rest of the world. and if we stay in the european union. >> we made a lot of progress in recent years in the past, a thing of the past, big reports to the common fisheries policy and i know my right hon. friend thinks closely, when we have a deficit with the e.u. on goods, we have a substantial surface when it comes to savers and the future and how we safeguard
those service industries as well as making sure our position single market is open. >> they create hundreds of thousands of jobs in future. does the prime minister agree it will give that you pay us from voice in making sure the completion of a market happens and get the best deal for british business and jobs? >> the honorable lady makes an important point which is not only that britain has a strong voice to make single market completed and the declaration competitiveness from the commission is worth reading but also an important point, if we were there, not only with the e.u. continue to exist and have a big impact on our lives but it would probably head in a very different and more protectionist direction that affect us quite
badly. >> dr. lee m. fox. >> my right hon. friend is deluged with advice and e.u. law during his investigation so can he give us an example of a single case of a different outcome if the measures he agreed last week had been in place at the time? >> it has been mentioned in a series of judgments by the european court of justice and there are two things that would have an impact, obviously the most eye-catching is the fact i quote from paragraph 1 on page 10, that the substance of these agreements, the treaties, the term and that would make sure references do not apply to the united kingdom. in many ways as significant, something many countries didn't want is the next paragraph that says the references in the treaties and the preamble, creating across the union do not
offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the treaties or e.u. secondary legislation. this redefinition is quite a fundamental change to the way this organization has worked. one way to think of is there have been two threats to our sovereignty, one from tree >> reporter: passing hours from britain to brussels, can't happen now because of our law. the second one is using the union to make sure the e.u. grows in power. it can't be done, now we have the change. one of the reasons this deal took whatever it was is not everybody likes this. is not meaningless words. it is words that mean something, that matter, make a difference and that is why i am determined to secure them. >> the prime minister was elected on 7% of the vote which means half these people, this referendum can only be won on the basis of people with labor
-- there isn't a reasonable supposition that these people are more interested in the positive circulation of the case for europe and the fractional outcome of the conservative party entertaining those they are. when will the prime minister put forward that case? >> i don't want to upset the right hon. gentleman. he is going to be supportive but i would say in the speech i made today i set out a positive case. it is the case of someone who is skeptical in the genuine sense. i am skeptical about all organizations, all engagement. we should always question. we should always question whether organizations work force and be doubtful about these things. i come at this from someone who has doubts about brussels, doubts about the e.u. and a
clear eye about what is best for britain. if others want to argue this from a more positive staff about the nature of the e.u. go for it. is up to everyone to make their own case but i will make my case in a clear determination of what is in britain's interests and i think i did that today. >> the prime minister said much of this renegotiation on immigration, can he tell the house in his estimation by how much the welker changes reduce immigration in the e.u. in coming years? >> i think anyone who looks at this who knows at the moment you could come from the e.u. and get 10,000 pounds in welfare benefits in the first year knows that that is a big incentive to come to britain and many people said we would never get changes, we have got those changes and as i said if we passed it,
legislation in 2017, a 7 year period up to 2024, restricting these welfare claims. that plus all the changes in many cases reversing judgments, ought they restore to our country powers over immigration that can make a real difference. >> supports our membership and we also support for a responses to campaign accordingly. we believe what would happen to measures like convergence spending provided on somebody in poor areas. >> the short answer is if we were to leave the e.u. we would not be able to get those funds which have made a big difference in parts of wales and england and other parts of our country. i also think i am someone who wants to keep the e.u. budget down. we achieved that historic position to cut it but we should
be frank that the work the e.u. has done in poor countries in other parts of the e.u. has helped those economy is to borrow. they are customers of ours. whether it is bulgaria or romania or greece, their economic development is in our interest. >> in january, protecting children from -- going inflames. after discussion there officials told me this was a harmonized piece of legislation. thousands of directives from brussels every year this government has to comply with so i said we cannot protect our own shall burn because we did not have the control without permission in brussels. >> i look at the case my right hon. friend says because it can be frustrating.
in that area of furniture and mattresses we have taken steps over and above what other countries have done which is kept our own people safer. the other thing is a lot of different figures if she looks at the house of commons far from being the five figures it was more like 13, 40 or 15 that come from this direction. >> the prime minister's statement and congratulate him unsuccessfully persuading his european counterparts to sign up for renegotiation, less successful, half the conservative party to support him. and the renegotiation may have been successful in central to how people make up their minds. when we belong to a european single market, 18 million pounds a year, and in or out. are we better off alongside
friends and neighbors or outside on aaron? keith international challenges like climate change and refugee crisis. and will he join with me with shared ambition. >> aimed at dealing with the legitimate grievances. in the u.k. for many years in the way e.u. works. the single currency club, too much political union, not enough about competitiveness and not enough protection in terms of welfare and immigration. i believe this renegotiation, this agreement goes a long way to dealing with each of those problems. now is the time as he says for the bigger argument for the future of the country and what sort of country want to live in for ourselves, children and
grandchildren is a? and the points he makes about britain being strong in full world, membership with nato matters and membership of the u.n. matters but our membership of the e.u. also gives us power to get things done in the world. >> mr. speaker, these bingees are proud of the record and the drop in unemployment, the record growth, production in our deficit, during his many meetings did he find anybody, even a single person that might suggest there would be better terms on our exit to achieve even better outside the european community? >> my right hon. friend makes an important point. there is goodwill towards britain because the contribution we make to the e.u. there's understanding of the difficulties that we had and
therefore with a huge amount of diplomacy and travel and meetings and everything else it has been possible to get a good agreement for britain. i don't believe as i said in my statement that if somehow we were to be at the table and ask for a second one i don't think it is remotely feasible. >> can i particularly welcome the equalization of which discriminated unfairly against british systems and can i ask the prime minister to recognize the work of the minister for york? i only managed two years in the job, he has done six and still retains his sanity. >> almost. >> the other big issue, the migration crisis, the british heads said there revive thousand within the european union area that had come through the border of the e.u..
what additional help has been given to "oxford handbook of religion and american politics" and italy in particular to try to deal with protecting the external border with the support of the process? >> let me thank him for the remarks in brussels for the negotiation. his eyes were shouting for a minute there. he has been doing the job for six years and done extremely well. we have managed to change their rules which is a real breakthrough be in terms of the help we are giving to italy and greece the discussions in brussels were very intense because the numbers have to be reduced and reduced radically and that is why i strongly support and britain contributes to the maritime operations that will have strong nato support as
well as support to bring together and -- greece and turkey with a common information intelligence about what is happening so we can stop these criminal gains from operating in the area. without that, there will not be a chance of getting the situation under control. >> for decades british ministers who had involvement with europe, to exaggerate the influence we bring to bear and conceal our inability to which the british interests. is that why the freedom of information request to establish that over the last two decades britain has voted against 72 measures in the european council and been defeated 72 times and the pace of defeat is accelerating. if we make the mistake, take the risk, if we take the risk of remaining in the e.u. how many
defeats does the prime minister expect in the next two decades? >> i don't for one minute underestimate the frustrations and challenges, there were challenges and frustrations. the research i have seen is deep analysis until the country achieves its position, shows that britain does in 90% of cases which to formalize the we get things done. outside the single market, the same countries but without as will write the rules. we have to comply in europe, and have no say over what they are. the illusion of sovereignty rather than real phones. >> the symbolism of removing the
phrase, but the lead of consequences i think the prime minister owes the house to give it one or two examples of the basis for its decision. >> i am happy to write to the hon. lady is in a series of cases, to give to us. >> on the question of article xv and a point out to my right hon. friend didn't exist in the treaties until the tree my right hon. friend used to oppose and agrees with. can i point out there are many ways of leaving the european union that might not involve article xv. doesn't want to find himself in the article l framer, divots and fought rather than submitting to a policy that he cannot support? >> the point i make to my right
hon. friend is like or like it not, the treaty of the european union is called article 50 and i think people should read it and this is what i find odd. if you want to leave, leave. if you want to stay stay. the idea of voting to leave i don't think the british public would understand. >> reporter: does the prime minister think president putin would rather see a strong written stay in a strong euros zone or would you rather see britain broke away from the european union and seek your a potentially break apart? >> it is certainly true that vladimir putin likes to see disunity in the west whether it
is about sanctions, syria, or russian conduct inert is no doubt the problems being created by vladimir putin and countries like britain that always in my view should stand up to aggression, that the alliance together with french and germans have made europe's position stronger and if we weren't there i don't think you could guarantee that would be a case and that is not an overstatement of the position. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the campaign says nothing is going to happen if we come out of europe, there will be absolutely no change. i hope my right hon. friend find that reassuring. will he agree with me that it is inevitable after the public vote to leave that there will be a
period of informal discussion before formal protest is driven? >> i have great respect for my hon. friend who is leading the campaign with great vigor and passion. but surely if you want britain to leave the e.u. you want things to change rather than not change. and article 50 is the only way to leave and what it says is used and two years negotiating your statements outside the e.u. and if agreed, at the end of those two years you leave and 27 other member states extend the process. on leaving if you don't have a deal you don't know what your relationship is with a single market, don't know what your relationship is with 5300 covered by the trading deal, you don't know very much. my argument is don't take that risk. what i think the lead campaign will have to do is explain what it is that you want once you
left. >> dr. mcdonald >> mr. speaker, could i thank the prime minister for his statement, does he accept with ireland and britain so closely connected economically and living in each other's shadow, and exit from the european union would be the protector of applications for the north side? if you look at the financial stock indications suggest there may be initial financial savings for the new k or huge losses likely to follow to have seen the impact yet we note of financial impact, and 75% they don't want to visit them is the prime minister exit from the e.u. will have a detrimental impact on north american
economy. >> the leader of a republic, one of the strongest voices of the renegotiation, everyone in northern ireland will have a vote, every vote can't sustain and i urge people exercise the democratic vote, going to the campaign to talk directly to people about why i believe it should stay. >> some people believe european neighbors want to do it down at every turn. is it credible to suppose these same people if we were to leave could believe our former partners would fall over themselves to give us free access to the single market which is the vital foundation for business and industry to trade across the world? >> my hon. friend makes an important that the. i feel that deeply because
having tried to build up the good will for a special statement for britain within the e.u. which is what we have achieved i don't believe that good will would in any way be there were we to decide to leave so i think he makes a very good point and that is why the safe option, the option without risk is to stay in the e.u. rather than sleep in the dark. >> as the prime minister outlines the consequences of leaving in terms of the economy and security, we can perhaps reflect on the wisdom of the leadership decisions leading to the consequences in a few months time. the second you want to leave, good sovereignty and control in the heart of their argument. does the prime minister agree with me that if we swapped a position, the decisionmaker at the table, you will be moving from the position of being a
rule maker to a rule taker and that is not sovereignty, it is not control and it is not a good future for the united kingdom. >> i don't agree with what the hon. gentleman said in the first part of his question. it is time for a referendum. we had too many treaties passing through the house where there was a referendum, wall street under conservatives or lisbon under labor and i think people's faith in our democracy and our accountability, particularly remember the moment when tony blair stood here and the rest of it and we fought a referendum was coming and it was taken away, right to have this referendum but we should not be frightened of asking people and trusting the people but i absolutely agree that if you want to ask the question how do we have greater control it is by helping to make the rules rather than outside simply taking rules.
>> murray at miller. >> i congratulate the prime minister for securing for britain what he talked about and says he agree with me the debate so far is for those who want to leave europe are completely unable to agree on alternative arrangements in the e.u. the same sort of economic and security benefits the renegotiation secures? >> my hon. friend makes an important point. today's discussions reveal not only is there not agreement about what britain's future looks like outside the e.u. but is contextual the agreement about whether we really should leave, some people wanting to vote leave in the hope of a different deal and there isn't agreement about how we should leave whether it is article 50 or some other process that could be followed. the only way of leaving is through article 50, there is no second renegotiation or referendum. the choice is in or out.
we now need to move the debate about what those things really mean. >> can the prime minister tell us beyond the edict suggested last week, in which his government's plans have been constrained by legislation or regulation? >> no doubt we do face constrained because the way the single market works is a common set of rules that have to be agreed and as has been said we don't always get our way. i would argue we get our way more often than we don't but there are occasions when we lose a vote and we are constrained by e.u. regulation legislation. the question i think we need to put in a hard-headed sense is if you are outside, does that actually give you the full control that you see? it doesn't because you have to trade with europe and accept the rules. the only thing you have done is
remove yourself from the conversation and take away your vote. >> the prime minister says this will settle the issue for generations. i have five grandchildren and i believe it is in their best interest that i shall be voting to remain within the european union. there is another generation that need some concern. children of people who pay u.k. taxes, national insurance over the years, now living in other parts of europe. my right hon. friend knows about the interest in those people. they are very frightened indeed. can he tell them what will happen if we leave the european union? >> very grateful my hon. friend decided to support the case for remaining in the e.u.. he raises an important point because of course we often look at free movement in terms of people's decision to come here but you also need to think about the british people who chose to
work, to live or retire in other parts of the e.u.. the short answer to the question is i can tell from what it will be like if we stay but i can't be certain if we leave. it would depend on a complex difficult negotiation and uncertainty. i would urge all those people who have the right to vote to make sure they exercise that right and particularly think about people in gibraltar who are able to vote in this referendum. >> i welcome the prime minister's commitment today to over the next four months speak plainly about what he believes is good for the country. as he develops will he bear in mind 9 million people voted labor the last year of the election? and sympathies and values don't naturally live with this party. he does need to develop a conversation with them as well. >> i take on board the point the right hon. gentleman takes.
this is not a political issue. this is now something for all people, all voters to get involved in. they might vote conservative in a general election but vote in or out, same with labor or liberal democrat or green or what have you. this should be a giant democratic exercise in accountability. we are asking about sovereignty. this is a refuge sovereign decision by the british people. i can sometimes upset labor voters, i would say put aside what you think about this government for that rule or that law. think about the future of your country, think about the big picture and then make the choice. i am always nice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister in the foremost of our thoughts when we are voting in a referendum. can the prime minister tell us how many crimes were committed in the u.k. by e.u. nationals?
the year before free movement of people came in and how many were committed by -- hall of many other e.u. nationals in the uk system before free movement of people and how many there are now? if he hasn't got it. >> i don't have those figures but what i can say to my hon. friend is hard work by the home secretary we are going to have to buy criminals from coming to britain on the reentry brands but solving problems in our way and as for prisoners the prisoner transfer agreement that we negotiated, that will get foreign prisoners out of our present plan attending to their jails outside the e.u. that would be more difficult, possibly impossible to achieve.
>> the only member elected to the european party, the mayor of london. and a lot more sense of its self. and his father was in favor of it. i changed my mind. after two years in the european parliament, working with people with other nations. 6. talking about acid rain. talking about free structures, the structural defects of restructuring in these
industries. i think enormously of other nationalities to emphasize again and again the importance of internationalism. >> i thank the right hon. lady about her honesty how she changed her mind when she was sitting with sandy johnson, two blond bombshells in the same european parliament which i remember campaigning with sandy johnson and the good people who decided to vote the right way in 2005 or 2010. sitting here, we would have been able to hear from him. >> sir edward lee. >> why does the prime minister bank on so much? some much about european migration? so many wonder people coming not
for benefits the integrate. much more worrying, the billions pouring into europe from north . . . . these people will exercise their right to come here once they get their german passports? if we remain here it is as useful as macedonian streets in stockholm? >> i do promise to bang on for the next four months and i hope after that to bang on considerably on this subject but my hon. friend makes a very important point. we have the advantage of being outside the foreign nationals coming to the european countries don't have automatic access to the u.k.. we can stop the coming in and we can stop european systems that may be a risk to the country but the fact will answer to his question is if you look at refugees and others who have a rivetinger if you look at refugees and others who have arrived
after ten years only around 2.2 percent of german citizenship. the evidence to date is that there isn't a huge risk of early grants of citizenship to these people, but i quite agree that we do need to act him and frankly we are more likely to act if we are involved to try and stem the flow of migrants in the 1st place. what is happening right now with this nato-led operation between greece is partly because of a uk intervention into this debate taken with the french, with the germans, with the italians. >> speaker, does the prime minister agree with me that the claim that staying in the european union would make an attack on our shores more likely, deeply irresponsible?
>> prime minister. >> i'm struggling to find the right page of my notes. here we are. i think that this is important because we should be clear about the advantages and disadvantages i have become very convinced that when we are fighting terrorism and crime we rely on the partnership, a partnership with america. incredibly powerful when it comes to keeping a safe, but i have seen in recent years just how much this matters with things like information systems, the european criminal record systems, systems, the passage of information between organizations. very clear, former president of the association of chief of police officers who said staying in europe and cooperating with our european allies is essential to keeping the european people safe. we can support terror suspects back to their country of origin.
and eu data sharing measures allow access to information on threats anywhere within europe within minutes. the very powerful statement from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about. of course outside the eu you could try to negotiate bilateral agreements. but i do think people asked why give up what is a system that is working to keep us safe when it could take so long to try to replicate it. even when you replicated your opponent is very clear, clear, they don't get the access, the personnel, the extra safety. >> 200,000 trained with the eu. just under half. given that the eu is the only of the big world's trading blocs in which we have a say, would it not be absurd to give away that say?
is 200,000 firms leading to fewer jobs, lovegrove. i think my friend makes an important. while it would be good evening to be part of a block. we have seen that with korea , singapore. we now need to see it with all the other countries. as i said from outside the eu could sign deals. that is likely to be a bigger and better deal. the argument very much goes one way.
>> britain has an enormous trade deficit in mind over 60 billion pounds a year. half of those determined. obvious that they need us much more than we needed. >> the problem with the statistics if you take the eu as aa whole something like 7 percent of the trade is with us. leave the eu and then contemplate the negotiation that would follow we had a trade deficit in guns though we have a massive trade surplus. the prospects for progress our greatest today. it would be a danger the orderly, but maybe you get
the deal on goods relatively quickly because of our deficit. ifdeficit. if they held up the deal and services where would our service companies be. boldly say about how long it would take to get a deal the safeguard the incomes and prospects? >> jacob rees more. >> thank you, mr. speaker. congratulate my right honorable friend. implementing the labor party manifesto. doesn't this actually show the problem that for so much labor is achieved so little, little, the european union is a failing organization, a failed policy in a single market the shackles us with regulation that makes us
uncompetitive, and immigration system that is betraying people who get to europe and not to mention the euro zone. and in this failed organization the prime minister has said in a statement that we are to make a final decision as to whether one sentence of the statement on fundamentally agree with. whether we stay with a failed body will even make our own path. as the government's policy basically always keep a home for fear of finding something worse? >> obviously my honorable honorable friend and i have a profound disagreement about this issue. i very much respect his views because it is held them in good faith for many years and i have no money. ii hope that i am sure we can respect each other in the months of debate ahead. for i do want to take issue.
i will run through. protect from further integration of the euro zone. we want to see powers blowing away. national parliaments to work together we will ensure that defense policy remains firmly under british national control. most of you for four years. at time and time again we all stood on this manifesto. i am proud of it. the team that put together and is implementing it. let us not forget pretend we have not delivered the manifest. >> you will be aware that i am proud to represent more
international headquarters. and yet they say the reason i have come years the english language is a gateway to the european market. i would invite the prime minister to encourage them to talk to those people whose jobs depend on that event to say what would happen if we left europe because they tell me there was a burden. >> i am certainly having that conversation. if you have a few make sure you tell people and talk to your customers, suppliers. above all talk to your employees and staff and colleagues because this issue is so important. the truth is that the business voice large and small is very much in favor
burden staying, manystaying, many of them have said quite generous things about this renegotiation as they recognize the dangers particularly in the area of safeguarding ourselves and given that of the business and enterprise will speak clearly. >> much of the protection of the euro rests on the safeguard mechanism. but this requires nothing as far as i can tell you nothing more than the discussion be held, not even the european council. and it leaves euro zone members free to enforce. soak in the prime minister explain will be on the discussion that can be ignored has been achieved by the safeguard mechanisms? >> it's an important question because there are two things here.
principles crucially. four. making clear that the financial stability the member states his currency is not the euro asis a matter for their own authorities. these principles are important. what is exciting about this is not only have they been set out for the 1st time, europe except there are other currencies seven mechanism is something else when five the way of making sure issues are raised should we want to of the level of the european council which is a protection we don't have today. making the principles. hugely important.
they will recognize this is important. >> divisor something the prime minister politically. within the national interest. britain to remain in the european union. and during the government in a process of negotiating new arrangements. the problems of this country. >> what i would say, we have really got to examine what these alternatives are.
they are in lies the importance of this decision businesses, families. >> one of the key benefits of his agreement is to give legal clarity. and he will be aware. >> this result. as he also agree it is wrong to say this is not legally binding and it is irreversible and as we choose otherwise. there's a very long opinion of the leading eu constitutional lawyer in this country which can be read on the henderson chambers website. >> i am very grateful. given that he was a senior law officer in the government. also listen carefully.
could not have been more clear on this. i also read the judgment by dashwood. in all of this is is is legally binding and irreversible. people who question it should look at the danish protocol. >> does the prime minister share my concerns and worries that after 70 years of peace and prosperity any nation begins to take it for granted. i was born on the august weekend in london at the height of the battle of britain. but my generation and many people in this country with longer memories know the piece and prosperity are not guaranteed unless you work
together across europe to maintain the day after day month after month and year after year. >> i agreei agree with the honorable gentleman. it is worth remembering. i think actually the people of my generation very much postwar children should remember that. i think we should then look at the institutions and try to make sure the organization works for this century rather than the last. i absolutely agree. i remember the meeting we once had. >> enjoying the recess.
but this is not the fundamental reform we were promised. what would you not agree with me that the security of europe is dependent upon nato not the eu nato know good by suggesting that somehow the eu has some competence in this area. >> huge respect for my right honorable friend. and i have to say after ten or 15 years ago might've said the same. not the eu,eu, but when we consider defense and security today the way that we fight terrorism depends on the other relationships but also what we do through the eu.
i see that everyday to the exchange of information. just take the agreement we reached at this council to make sure there is a strong nato mission to try and help the situation between greece and turkey. it is a nato mission, but where were some of the conversation? the germans and the british and french sitting together and working out what assets we could supply, how we get real power into it. the fact is we need both, to keepboth, to keep safe in the modern world the fight terrorism, criminality, use all the organizations. >> the prime minister has played fast and loose. seems to do nothing. will the prime minister now guarantee that his government's case for remaining in the eu.
>> and in that campaign that is ais a series of documents, some of which were mandated. they amend of the referendum. we need a set out the alternatives, the rights and obligations. the obligations in the eu. the economic case. all of those issues. to those interested in some of the cultural our educational arguments come forward. made a strong voice from universities. cultural organizations should be speaking out, too. >> thank you very much. with my right honorable friend agree with me that when this country and our national interest makes an
international agreement of any kind and they involve a loss of sovereignty. that may be the case there any trade deal, and indeed on the single most important issue of this house of commons could take images whether or not to engage in military action. we are treaty bound to go to the defense under article five. and that obliges us in that sense we have lost sovereignty because we believe it is in the interest of the country to enter that agreement and thisis made us safer. the claim of sovereignty for the trump card would it not be the case that all of those international agreements would have to be torn up? >> a very important peemack. if you're only determination determination was never to see any technical sovereignty you never join
any of these organizations. so therefore the question really is what maximizes our power and influence and ability to get things done. i would love to live in utopia. therefore make your ways less powerful rather than more powerful. >> gently remind the house the people who wish to take part in the exchanges should have been here at the start and remained throughout. people who have gone in and out of the chamber not in the standing. we need to be clear about that. >> the bogeyman policy for me, if this could be in the
can i put it to the prime prime minister that he should at least accept the possibility of the red card could be turned against us and that it could not stop for it would stop brother uk sponsored initiatives being blocked by the majority of the eu to initiatives that could be in our best interest. >> i don't overstate. it is a new mechanism, not a delay but to properly block initiatives should they want to avail themselves of it. this is about another thing that makes the organization more democratically obtainable. onobtainable. on some occasions that might work against the other
national parliaments. i supposei suppose that is accountability. democracy. this will be more democratic >> thank you, mr. speaker. you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister seems to be getting nothing from his own site. can i commend him for coming? freedom of movement and ten he assure the house that there will be absolutely no implication for the hundreds of thousands living in the eu? >> of course if we stay in the european union british people will continue to be able to work abroad, live abroad as they do now. it is not for me to set out. the lead campaign will want to try and address that. that.that. people know with certainty what they get.
>> my briefly. the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. so long as we are subject to the european commission and the european court of justice. and very little change last weekend. >> i think will change last weekend is that because we are getting out of ever closer union we now know that we can't be forced into further political union against our will. but on the issue of sovereignty of course if you leave the eu you might feel more sovereign because you could pass this law without law, but on the other hand you have to meet all the rules over which you have no say.
>> here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on the issue of sovereignty it has been reported in several news media organizations the prime minister in terms to unveil sovereignty bill. will you confirm that is the case? if so we tell us what provision he will make that the principle of unlimited sovereignty is a distinctly english principle. which is more counterparts. >> what i said i think we should do is build on what we did in 2011. they can choose to join the eu will leave the eu which is good for the whole of the united kingdom. we do have a solid to five solid parliament. there are ways we can add to that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. two and a half thousand
people packed the qe center, a national party campaign. amongst the speakers, mr., mr. speaker, or two, a renowned commentator my senior trade unionist and very respected labor mp. the cochairman, more conservative mp and the leader of respect. in 2014 ruth davidson next line conservative leader in scotland leaked arms with george galloway in the national interest. does the prime minister agree that he was right and that sometime you have to work with people you don't like.
>> everyone will have to make the choice. i think the disadvantage of appearing on any platform that either nigel or george is what i consider who there friends are. the people they support of the politicians. but this is something everyone will have to think carefully about who they want to appear with. >> a lot of talk quite rightly. but the beating heart of our economy is the small and medium enterprise sector. they export the eu countries. does the prime
minister not agree that it would be madness to slam the door in their face? >> the overwhelming majority supports the case that i am making and there are many companies that are not exporters are involved in the supply chain with companies that do export. this is the point a lot of the business service organizations, banks and accountants and lawyers are well-placed to make. >> thank you. i would like to also thank my honorable friend, the prime minister, members of this house who voted for us to have a referendum. in the prime minister say the agreement is reached alters the existing treaty? >> obviously it does. this will be one of the founding documents of the eu. the international law agreement and in the treaty changes will sit alongside the other
treaties that have been produced in the past. i regret the fact that so many trees were passed so little democratic accountability. getting out of ever closer union's from a distant three for many of us.us. and also the democratic accountability of holding a referendum. >> the prime minister has stated explicitly the people who vote to leave the european union represent many veterans of the armed services. will the prime minister apologize to those people? >> i absolutely did not say that. what i said was that i love my country and think our country, and amazing country, will be greater and more powerful if we remain in organizations through which we can project our power and influence.
i don't question the patriotism of anyone in our country. i believe part of britain's greatness is not simply the parliamentary democracy we enjoy, but we are an outward looking country. i am proud of the fact that we help. trying to stabilize countries. how we are able to do this because we are strong, because we have great defenses but also because we are members of nato our permanent seat at the un. it is technical jargon, but that is what we use. >> up next : department of homeland security sec. secretary j johnson the discussion on disaster preparedness.
>> how can we best get people to pay attention to wasteful thinking? the government is so large, an organization has to come through a lot of noise in the other things that are going on tour members of congress and trying to get people to be more involved. >> sunday night on q&a. >> we worked with a bipartisan coalition which
they're was called the congressional toward busters coalition, and they came up with us with the definition of what was then called porkbarrel spending and eventually became the term earmarks. we went through the appropriations bills. the 1st is about 3 billion. and every year that we can find earmarks we release it. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern.
>> good afternoon, everybody. good afternoon. i am pleased to have a packeda packed house for this event. homeland security is protection against and reaction to acts of violence to max of terrorism, natural disasters and all manner of crises that may get the homeland that any given moment. homeland security is also home state security, hometown security, dealing with the unexpected, the surprises, the sudden crises
much of what we do at the federal, state and local level. what makes the difference is strong visible, decisive leadership. for me one of the models for that has been rudy giuliani. hire me to be an assistant united states attorney in 1988, and for a lot of new yorkers was an example and is an example of leadership through crisis because of his visible decisive leadership in the days immediately after. in addition to mayor giuliani we have other leaders across the country who have been faced with all manner of crises whether it is a natural disaster,
collapse of a bridge, september 11, mass shooting or natural disaster, tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and the, and the like. here with me today are five gentlemangentlemen who are in my judgment great americans who had the experience of leadership through crisis and in my view have done it well. this is a bipartisan group and a nonpartisan event. good leadership in crisis is not a democratic or republican phenomenon. it is more about the elected official, less so about their political stripes. so here today are people i respect you appreciate there time for being here today. let me introduce them to you.
governor dan malloy of connecticut, former assistantconnecticut, former assistant district attorney in brooklyn. how many ada's in brooklyn. graduate of boston college law school, mayor of stamford connecticut for 14 years and has been governor of connecticut since 2011. on december 142012 governor malloy was faced with one of the worst mass shootings in us history. twenty-six people, 20 schoolkids, six adults. governor malloy had to face hurricane sandy in october 2012.
as well as hurricane irene. governor jay nixon of missouri my governor of governor of the state of 6 million been governor since 2004. member of the state senate and lawyer. governor nixon face the civil unrest and ferguson, missouri in the aftermath of the shooting death of michael brown. in addition governor nixon has had to contend with what cragg fugue eight, the administrator of fema have said is one of the worst tornadoes to ever hit the continental united states and dropped on missouri in
may 2011. the city of 50,000 people that involve 158 deaths and affected 7,000 homes. governor tom ridge known around dhs headquarters as homeland security one. governor of pennsylvania, state of 12 million people in 1995 to 2001 before becoming the 1st sec. secretary of homeland security. governor ridge, like mayor giuliani and others had to contend with the terrorist attack in shanksville, pennsylvania are united flight 193 crashed, 33 passengers and seven crew were killed. governor ridge and i both attended the anniversary in
shanksville last year. governor duval patrick, former governor of massachusetts, former practicing lawyer, former assistant attorney general, former general counsel of coca-cola, former general counsel of texaco, governor oftexaco, governor of the state of massachusetts from 2007 the 2015. governor patrick had to contend an august 15, 2013 with the boston marathon bombing at 249 in the afternoon on patriots' day, one of the best and brightest days in boston and in massachusetts each year, went to pressure cooker bombs exploded killing three people and wounding 260 of the boston marathon. sixty people lost their legs. the immediate aftermath over
10001,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were brought to bear leading to the ultimate death and then the ultimate arrest, prosecution command conviction of the brothers. governor patrick had to do with the 100 year100 year blizzard last winter. i storms, waterman breaks that affected the water supply. last but not least, former mayor of minneapolis the city of 400,000 people. he served for three terms from 2002 to 2014. by trading is been a journalist in the commercial real estate agent from our publisher, spent time on the internet, written a book.
a guidebook for mayors. and on august 12010 is city had to contend with the collapse of the art 35 w. bridge over the mississippi river killing 13 injuring 145 and damaging 111 that day on aa bridge over which an estimated 140,000 vehicles pass a day. mayor rybak is today the director of a not-for-profit cogeneration next let's drive storage educational excellence. it is also had to deal with tornadoes. may 2011 and august 2009 and other disasters.
so we have assembled these public servants to talk to us not so much about the nuts and bolts of disaster response, or you call tomorrow you call it fema for disaster declarations and so forth, but the broader issue of obsolete and react as a leader in times of all manner of crisis. and so having said all that will return the floor over to our distinguished guest panelists and let me start working for my immediate left. >> thank you. thank you for what you are doing and what you have accomplished over the entirety of your career. i am actually looking at all of you. having heard the introductions i am wondering what you are doing in the audience.
but the secretary called a couple months ago and said what i talk about my experiences sandy hook, supersonic standing irene. on the natural disaster side and six declarations of natural disaster since i became governor speaks to climate change. i think what i will start with his sandy hook. children and adults and there is nothing in life that prepares you for something like that. but i think from that experience and others when i was mayor and now through the time that i have been governor there are couple things i would like to share
with you. every one of the folks would agree that you are handling the crisis is not about you. if it is you have got a problem. in my case you might no some of the story. all ofstory. all of the children and teachers have been evacuated. by the time that ii got there everyone is already been reunited. the only people left for people who did not know for sure their loved one had passed. and the protocol for a lot of police departments and organizations, you never tell someone that they have lost their loved one until you have identified the body.
they kept asking the police, who is going to tell these folks.folks. they kept explaining that is not the way they did it. i let that go on a longer than i should have. eventually i intervened and said i'm sorry i have to tell you this, but you are here. if you are in this room and you have been reunited with your loved one today you are not going to be. and what we then did to react to that situation i think changed and perhaps a police officer or trooper. by 10:00 o'clock that night we had already decided mental health professional with respect to each of the
families and into the broadest community the next day. we had begun the work of breaking down silos long before sandy hook and. and it really had shown itself that day. people from every department , recovery, investigation, protection. we were well practiced. i think thatthink that is another thing everyone has to learn. i think my experience as a mayor where we lost a lot of the citizens down in new york or other disasters
really strengthen the response and made us better responders. i started by saying it's not about you. there is the communications side. ii would not speak to the press until after everyone knew what the circumstances were for their loved one. i give a very brief statement. visited by evil that day and that we needed to do further investigation and didn't do a lot of interviews. a interviews. a very different type of circumstance particularly when you know people are grieving. we were very careful. a very
different situation than when you're dealing with natural disasters. we had portions of the state without power. as people do need to hear from you. theythey have to know when there going to update them. and so they are very different types of circumstances. you have to be a little bit afraid of communications. those are couple quick thoughts. answering your questions are taking other questions. >> governor. >> thank you. thank you for bringing everyone together. i will try to keep my comments short and focus on the leadership side.
my went down to work out in the basement of the mansion on may 21 2011. they gave nothey gave no wonder what was coming on. i can simulate a workout while watching a game. >> works for me. >> my council call me. switch the weather channel. really bad storms. and so i turn on the weather channel back and forth. sure enough right there you see the three cells heading right toward a very popular area of the state and everything went dark. he had -- nef five tornado came in. but 1100 people in jail have excuse me, and the hospital. 11,500 cars completely destroyed.
it was just amazing. the three things i always say his 1st of all separating response from recovery is important. we had a situation where the unaccounted list was taken over. 1500 people missing. when you get back in the situation. a 2nd tornado came through. wethrough. we had 405 law enforcement agencies working cooperatively. state, federal toalmost six different states. the bottom line is that recovery peace, it's going to be in the back of your head. it's not over on the responses over. in the back of your head you have to think recovery. that therein get your own eyes on. it's not going to do very well.
you have to get down there. that also sends a message of strength. on the governors there is there that means 6 million missourians are there, people almost feel relaxed. number one is get there. number two is trying to court and it responsibly. the generally generally have a lot of trained law enforcement personnel. we are trying to do is coordinate. again talking about recovery because what i did not want to have happen is what happened in greenwood, kansas. a year later there were only 20 percent of the people left. it's real easy to move somewhere else. on the 5th anniversary we
have more people now that we have before. the schools of been rebuilt, the unemployment rate of that community is a half a.above the state average. you have to get through response 1st and all the requires their personal attention. >> homeland security, thank you to hs four. appreciate the invitation. the 30 years of government service. i thought about writing a book on leadership. somebody leadership. somebody said what do you think you can do to contribute to back several thousand volumes. there volumes. but you have given me the opportunity to talk more. my inoculation in this world happen as a young congressman.
three smaller tornadoes bounced around three different communities in my congressional district. clark in the southern community stopped. they have tornadoes bouncing around. of the the sea you have to deal with a variety of natural weather problems. business related crises and then finally as secretary johnson pointed out, september 11 and shanksville. based on those experiences out for preliminary thoughts. at the time of crisis those who have leadership responsibility need to do a couple things immediately.
understand completely that you will not have total situational awareness probably for several days. the mother was in the hospital. state policeman explains one plane has been hit. talking on the phone. hopefully as a leader you have anticipated. because of my experience in 1985 they had a very modern, very modern up-to-date emergency operation. when you accept the leadership responsibility is going to happen. to your.response and recovery is important. you get as much information as you can. the 1st thing i tried to
do comeau what do i know about this? we know nothing. we just have everyone in place. obviously i hadi had to deal with the press and erie, pennsylvania. it took aa couple hours to get clearance. venture we had everything going. started evacuating tall buildings. popped off ?-question-mark and made my way to shanksville. they try to get as much information as you can. i suspect my colleagues will agree with me, your presence as soon as possible is absolutely critical. ..
several days because it doesn't end with that particular day when the crisis services. the more you learn the more you share and the government pointed out you better be coordinating a response capabilities. so they conclude that you are there because of the victims and that is a first up -- step. >> thanks for having me today. first of all, one of the important points has been made and i will make them again. if you were down a the end we are at the relaxed end of the panel.
[laughter] we have had the marathon happening for a long time and it has been described as a statewide block party we had the uncommonly beautiful day. the governor has a customary role of the boston marathon to crown the female easy to render. but the mayor at the time was in the hospital and could not be there. so he asked me to do the honor. so by new york 1230 i had crowned the winner and i had a non -- an uncommon day that i had no other appointments.
i thought i will go home to work on my gardener. i got maya workout in i had my hair cut headed home with my daughter called. what is going on? i said i don't know. stay out of the way. shirley after that the trooper driving the got a call ahead of our emergency management services and with whom i had been through any significant crisis in the first time i ever heard him shake. he said get down here. 102 hours later both perpetrators were identified one was dead in the other under arrest. none of the people injured
at this site many had life-threatening illnesses who got to the hospital died. everyone who got to the hospital survived. there are two takeaways. preparation is everything. keith to coordinate with hospital and who should tree irish these injuries in that went right into effect the first person was in surgery nine minutes after the first bomb went off. the second, if you have heard various but the second has to do with the importance of making decisions knowing your information is incomplete.
wonderful things but but the primary was:9/11. this huge responsibility for minneapolis and the people that i represent was to bring 70 of us in secretary i should think before that because it was tremendous and as we had come up through consensus leadership sharing different ideas with that command-and-control structure it was all whole different way of directing and i could see police and fire acting one way in getting those two cultures
together mattered because part of this scenario is the piece of equipment small enough to reach so we bought that with only in security dollars in their bridge did collapse of the first piece was what we bought because of that was critically important that about one-half to -- one hour after the collapse but there are really two parts per:is that tactical command and control but the other is the human side. you were there i believe tuesday the entire community was there. about one hour after the bridge collapsed we were
building those relationships and we went to every one of those fuels. in people who had huge concerns were kept together. also it was a call to arms and the of from where it katrina happened is and katrina was the real of lot. the part of the city that is most impacted for every day in we hear exactly where those disparities are the worst. it wasn't just moving things around by recognizing these are all people who even knew who owned the home.
and there's huge other set of issues to undo those in the right way but in i didn't know a lot. it is important that people in a crisis need to understand these philosophies when the of a bridge collapsed pretty much everyone constituency was on the bridge. that issue of common ground is something that is our primary responsibility.
>> a couple of questions. you during interesting contrast between the ongoing crisis with a single event like the mass shooting in thin dealing with the aftermath of that and it is important that people hear from you sooner rather them later. they need to know that they're there to help them get through this. it is a fair point to say in a shooting situation people would not appeal your publicly for every victim's family i am curious to know
why and why did you feel that way? that could not have been the case on 9/11. >> every day we are more connected. if i say anything outside the firehouse they would have known. so to know how many dead there are. with the survivors and of families everybody is communicating and i have this conflict that we have resolved everything.
are you ready to make a statement? i.c.e. said no. in she said i will hold off in the weight. i will just say how sorry we are. so all of the survivors were in one place so was a very different set of circumstances. i thought with that amount of grief those who had lost their loved ones that there was precious little i can add is the immediacy in that would not resolve any of that. >> is a when i say it isn't about me the worst thing you
can do as a leader politically is to make it about you and i have seen people in different circumstances have crossed the line to make it about them and make it worse. not better. every once in awhile with every of other natural disaster we have warning. >> you have to be communicating before. i did everything to the press two weeks ago. they said wire you even talking about this? so there are two different ways to communicate that which might happen or has happened to be defined differently as a natural disaster.
that one very sick individual taking out. i had to have the right balance. and i wanted to represent them. i have stressed the importance of being there. i am sure each of you know, that each of the staff keeps you in the chair away from the press at your office at the command center to not go out to the scene to the
bridge or the st. or to the locality. when you are away from them so is there a drawback they don't necessarily get the big picture as a critical moment so wanted to ask you to comment on that. >> you are naturally curious so the closer you get you might get not just some intelligence but you still have access to education. i remember one was unaccounted for. ended didn't match those
that were missing because they had all sorts of stuff has you deal with potential victims and those that are missing windows that are injured bird taken to tulsa or springfield matching up who was where is extremely difficult. i would have felt that if i didn't look right in their eyes of the relevance in door extremely appropriately ee emotional about that. water two days after all is trying to get the of clergy together. some of the best intelligence we have never gotten are those who are literally sitting across the
table. >> there is of legitimate expectation that you will be front and center. and then pushed me out the door is mitt is the right thing to do. that when something has gone wrong. to serve that those very high levels of responsibility. that we know when we appear school shooting, a bridge collapse, 9/11, those
present it is affected now given the media coverage in in in going through all whole range of emotions. think of 9/11. you were shocked coming become uncertain in to be unsure where there retribution should be directed. and those are your emotions as well. so you have the opportunity to convey to the larger audience you are there to
see those we constructive measures to be put in place because when he basically say to that audience by m accountable that that letter general eisenhower had in his back pocket. i am accountable for those decisions not quite as tornadic as in the day but you share those emotions as but you also say in they should be held accountable. this is a reassuring message
in my judgment. >> i could not agree more. as governor rich described from the water main breaks that i wanted to be present for the reasons described but we had a first reaction because of i got the news i said turn around. they said we don't know if this is over so we don't want to take you. so we had this negotiation and not in the center of an all. i thank you help to pay for that actually.
[laughter] or if we should go to the state house. so we all understood the importance but inactive situation it was an obvious to my security team what being present mint. >> impossible for a leader to get in the way of the community with those tactical people doing the work where can you deliver value? to meet having a human being and was in the family center is she was expecting and
said she never left your house without full makeup i cannot imagine how horrible that would be for that last image to be decomposing coming out of the water. i never would have thought of that. but there was never a picture of those bodies coming now because she said that to be. oh wife said to me my husband lived for baseball his mitt is in the back of the car. can you get that? we got that but only because she said that. when the tornado hit an older woman in a housecoat walking with devastation said water you drink?
she said i have to get out but i walked up to a porch in said can she sit on your porch is she looked in the indignity but the woman of the house was african-american the older woman was white but she said she will not. she will sit in my living room. but this does take a toll to research a degree to constantly be on the scene. and i had just done a tour of the business in the older beta big deal about the picture taking with his son. lewis said where is he?
he is going to madison to look at the college. brief sent somebody to find him so up and down the pipeline you are there to observe that. >> those of us that were privileged to serve in leadership it does mean you have to be prepared for the ultimate crisis. and nl the commissioner of police and the governor long before that took the time to
prepare for a major event you don't know if there is mother nature but those that take the time to prepare. i remember a lot of great stories how beautiful and magnificent your community responded. that does not happen unless roles and responsibilities are identified and practiced long before the incident occurs. leadership role should be prepared you don't know when a and you don't know the nature i would rather in any situation face the backlash to be over prepared they
didn't need to use those resources in the need to have that kind of mindset but that is the nature of the world that we live in. >> there will be a crisis or to. >> obviously you had to end with that situation in ferguson. in the the unique aspect there is the unfolding situation in you are never sure where it will go and to have to make decisions with that context. >> i remember it like yesterday. we had that picture of the man shot and killed the day before.
that picture is in the paper a lot of days. but you see that in the pronouncement of that and as the afternoon those nine you see the intensity level go what some call the prosecutor and the sheriff to say we need the justice department. you can feel it. vanadinite we went to church and you could feel the energy. it was a lot of years around america that just did not feel right so we established at that point was safety in
a speech. i don't think anybody thought there was a lack of first amendment but the safety part is important we do really began studying rights of rodney king 50 people were killed afterwards handed detroit dozens. >> between that time and final resolution there was other single shot fired by a cop nor was a cop shot. dead is a low standard for government service you make it through the day but in a situation that is how basic the day was because we just do we would have to take a lot of banks. when you get that decades of intensity and you know, it
will be continued bad feelings and tell it is resolved and even than. so i am proud of the work of local law enforcement we had to speed up the shift you cannot do an eight dash hour shift of that. but the layers of government can be challenging i usually don't complain even with the cameras rolling. [laughter] that's fine they have a job to do but sometimes the story will be written before happens once we had to seal off the area to make sure we're getting the search is done and find the bodies
then we had to deal with that. in those local issues with the rules of the engagement in that part you have 100 towns you have all sorts of people popping up you don't have time to be the editor and producer in and do what you do. >> that was pretty grateful. >> you have mentioned the value of the trading it in your experience is that principal value more accountable so your people
know what levers to pull or what frequency to dial or is it an issue of exercising your decision making? >> after the anthrax and we did the table top or then you will let the people to get to others. >> there were so many different agencies with capabilities and had to coordinate with almost every crisis. so having them understand
and how they make decisions in who would make which kind is a muscle memory and it was enormously important to. and in the case of the medical and hospital response we had developed that plan. but i didn't develop that planned the hospital did. it wasn't quite autopilot but they executed. they don't answer everything but to build relationships on the understanding of that information is helpful in realtime. >> i have been involved with tabletop exercises going
back to post an 11 per but not a single one i did not learn from because we ask everybody that is no. once we have the ongoing educated experience the you augment your ability to respond. to their not terribly expensive. in you have to be engaged with the ongoing basis because personnel changes. after 27 years is true in every one of the department's. if you were not doing tabletop exercises regularly then you throw away the contribution of those that
made those experiences on occasion. >> it is an interesting moment right now i cannot tell you how much we benefited because of a 11 -- 9/11. fin and katrina was a seminal moment for these efforts and i am so glad we thought our preparedness strategy because of the tornado i mentioned was about the disparity as much as destruction. . .
. >> you better talk about the work that you're doing as well as more and more information to continue for the public. the crisis requires an availability to journalists because they have a significant role to play. if you don't feel the void as the leader and that's one of the advantages of the tabletop, who who is going to speak for this? i see my friend admiral who did such a marvelous job for katrina
and once he got down there he had a significant's presence on television, telling everybody what they were doing. it was a reassuring presence, the more presence, the more information he had the more information he shared. if you are not out there on a regular basis, if it's not the first second or third day we have well-intentioned people who all live in. >> we all live in fear of getting out there and saying something that is wrong. >> but you're never going to have a total situation where till the very end when it is all said and done. all i know is if you're not out there on a regular basis and identified with accountability for situation you may find theirs misleading information put out there and you have to do everything you can to push back against that. >> quickly, before you have all of the information i think you have to tell people, based on what we now know, it is our
belief and i think a lot of folks think in leadership is that you have to go and tell people and only give them one direction to go in or one thought. i think it is much more effective particularly over something that you know is going to hang over your community to just be honest. if the press asked of fair question or not, you still have to answer it. you should answer and you should say based on what we know, all of those sorts of things. don't crossover, don't allow your own desire to look strong, to overcome what you know you need to do and that is to put modify language out there so that if you have to change, you change. the best example of that i will tell you, it's a little bit like these flashbacks come back. one of the big storms that
caused power out of big parts of the state for an extended period of time during very hot weather, one of the utility companies made a promise they were going to have all of the power on by x day. five days, four days, i don't remember what it was. at least five or six days. their santa, i'm the governor, that's what they're saying. by day three i'm looking at the numbers and those storms hit a bunch of states. i said said you are not going to meet this deadline. and they said no, we we are. i said i don't think we are. i do not go public with that but i stopped allowing him to appear at the podium when i was there. and then finally one time he got up to say this thing and i do want to have a fight but when he
got up to speak i left the room, people figured out we are not standing together any longer on this. i think you have to manage those situations. there are other people who will have a voice, a police chief. i think you have to be leading in different ways. body language is extremely important. modifying language is extremely important. the final thing i want to say any reference whether you have a good relationship or bad relationship, it does not make a difference. you are not communicating if you are not communicating if you are not properly using the press. that means accepting what other people have. the worst express i ever had, the second worst experience, we had and i'm not sure if it was irene and sandy because they both heard our state, they were
terrible. we had spent days telling people they had to evacuate from low-lying areas along long island in certain rivers. we spent days telling them. in essence, begging them to do it. the storm is coming along and it does not appear to be taking off terribly badly. then i get a report that more water has accumulated in the western long island because it is a big funnel and that it gets a very narrow from where i am from stanford, greenwich and into new york. more water have floated at a faster rate than ever recorded. all of a sudden i had to make a choice, do i tell people to continue to the process of evacuating which i have been telling them for days, or do i change that message. we decided to change the message because we believed evacuating at that point would be more dangerous than staying in place and getting to the highest level
we had to change that message on a dime and we had to convey it and we had to have it stick. and we did it. i am convinced to this day that changing that message in that period of time, getting an out, having it backed up by the media, but everyone who could get that message out, actually saved lives. i was in the midst of it and we made a decision and it was a change and we saved lives. sometimes you. sometimes you have to do that. >> one observation i made, i recall and this is very relevant to our discussion, you will remember right after 911 was a series of anthrax threats. i've been in the white house for maybe a week or two, still trying to figure out which door to come in and out of. so we have responsibility for this. we have multiple people in the federal government, multiple
organizations organizations that had some sliver of jurisdiction or responsibility over the issue, response for recovery, fbi, and others. people people were having press conferences all over the place. frankie, one evening we got the primary players into the roosevelt room and said from this point forward we are going to operate, i will hold the press conference and we will cornet our public message together. leadership in crisis, someone has to be the focal point, the connectivity with the broader audience. the last thing you need whether you are governor, mayor, whoever you whoever you are, secretary, is having multiple agencies in your enterprise giving multiple press conferences and holding multiple hearings, because you are supposed to be reassuring people. you're supposed to be projecting confidence and capability, i
have this under control, when, when you have multiple people doing crisis under your jurisdiction, giving not necessarily different messages but different messaging, it's a real problem. leaders have to control that. that is what governor patrick did so well in massachusetts. by and large, he was the face of a responsible governor. >> i was going to thank you for that. we had that experience of multiple agencies, state, local, federal, all convening at the marathon bombing site, all wanted to help you in all having something to contribute. based on experience i had actually, in washington when eyes head of the civil rights division we have this rash of attacks on black churches and synagogues in the south, and to cornet in that case that fbi and the atf. it was incredibly important to say to everybody, you all have a
role but we'll have one agency in charge of the investigation and one person in charge of public medication. we went around and agreed what it was going to be and i looked everybody in the eye and have them say yes, i i am in. on the whole, and hell. but i will give a slightly other experience around imperfect information and communicating. i got a call at 1:00 a.m. on a friday morning of the the first call saying there had been a shoot out in watertown community outside of boston and it was supposed at that point that the brothers were involved. i got called every hour for the next few with additional information about the shooting of the mit security officer, about the older brother was dead , that we had a transit
officer that was shot in the younger brother was in flight. so the question came at about 5:00 o'clock, do we suspend the transit service into and out of the community that had been cordoned off for search at daybreak. since it only involves a bus line it was pretty easy to do. we say great we will come down to the scene at six and announce when the service will start. i'm getting ready to go, heading out the door, the next call comes, we have reports of a taxi and a pickup in the watertown neighborhood around the time the suspect was lost that then went to south station just in time
for the first train, and track train out of boston to new york. the next call comes, we have stopped a taxi and a taxi in fenway area boston with explosive device in the trunk, we have detained the driver and we're trying to determine whether this was the taxi with the earlier drop off and if the driver is connected. the next call comes, the federal authorities by the federal courthouse at the waterfront are in pursuit of someone down by the courthouse that fits the description of the suspect. you have all of this information. the question then was, how do we surgically closed down the transit so there is not an escape route? what is the way that you protect everybody if we have an unfolding situation? but not enough actual facts to report that publicly without setting off a panic. those the basis on which we decided to ask people to shelter in place. that was a big call.
it turned out to be a helpful call. but not without its critics. >> let me ask you a hard question, i know there is no good answer. given your experience, what is the best way or the least worst way to tell a group of your citizens that their child, their parent, their mother has been killed? >> i have reached the conclusion that i have to tell them and nobody else would. everyone is there, so i did a
quick tour of the firehouse and there's a building next door. thinking maybe we could pull people out one family at a time or small groups, there is no place to do it. trucks had already been moved out in the bays were taking over for emergency response. so i left the building to walk 200 yards to an adjoining building to say maybe we can move people there and informed them and they can go home from there. no sooner had i left the building then people started to surround me, most of them to the press and they were just doing their job, i'm not being critical. i suddenly realize that the only way this could conclude in these
folks could get on with their own surviving children or to other loved ones or support network is that you are going to have to do it in mass. that that is absolutely the worst way to do it. >> let me ask the rest of you an open ended question that you can answer any way you choose. in a crisis like this, what what role do you think religion should play? >> i am a huge believer that it plays a vital role. as you have seen there is no way to explain, indirectly stark human terms, what the sorts of things mean to people lives and
their futures. if you do not have somebody, if people have a spirit they can call on it will help you. there is no way to do it without having clergy with you at some level. >> one thing i think is important is it is important to speak values. it is is important to find where there is universals. when you are dealing with death, any of these incidents or others, i find that the one commonality is that the most difficult thing in death's finality. i. i will never see this person again. if you look across a lot of religious experiences there are many ways to deal with that issue. often in a situation where i would be one on one was someone who is facing death and i was in that a lot, i would go there somehow. it can be as complex and theological and religious as
they are with god. it can be, you have memories, there are multiple things between that but if you if you are in a one-on-one conversation with someone facing death, i do think there is a way to speak to faith in a way that can speak to someone who is deeply faithful in the classical sense or someone who is very spiritual or somewhere along that. it is import to acknowledge that. i think the idea that death is on godly complicated thing. my father died when i was a kid. i was confronted with death in early i dealt with death a lot. i do think with people of faith it is deeply helpful. i think the value can be represented of people who are not necessarily faithful. >> secretary, we had an interface service three days after the bombing which i think was incredibly important. is
important to important to me and to our community, it was a big part of our healing. i had an opportunity to speak at that service and i talked about both religious faith and civic faith. i think the civic faith point for us in our community was also in numerous lee important to because there was an opportunity and in some respects a way in which people could turn on each other as a time like that. what we needed was people to tune towards each other. we talked about that. we talked we talked about how the community had helped solve the crime, how they helped support the survivors, reunited runners with their families. that race was stopped midstream and how enormously important all of that was to our recovery and
how it had to last once the tv cameras went home. i am not sure i would answer the question just about religion although as a person of faith that is important to me. many in our community we have the interfaith service for that reason. >> first of all hopefully when you're confronted with the leader with that you can draw on your own faith. those are pretty difficult circumstances. if nothing else you have to ask for the strength to be strong in the face of the tragedy that everybody else is facing in a very real way. i like the allusion i think to most civic faith and personal faith, however your project it is a time to talk about both.
faith in your creator regardless of where you are on the religious spectrum, in midst of that horror and adversity i think you can be well assured that 99 out out of 100 people are looking inward or upward to find some strength and a message of faith. you also need to project faith in their creator but also faith in their civic institutions that we are all together and we will get through this. i think the first place you need to start with is yourself. you need to project that to give you the strength and to say the right thing, do the right thing, and hopefully that combination of faith in both the creator and your community as everybody here has done if you listen to the stories, faith in their community together for healing
and recovery is critically important. you need them both. >> before we conclude let me point out there are a lot of people in michigan today dealing with this exact thing right now. in the aftermath of what has happened. as we leave this group a big round of applause for a panel [applause]. >> thank you all very much.
[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton holds a farm in columbia, south carolina. the civil rights and pleasing practices. we'll hear remarks from others who lost children to gun violence. that is live. that is five tomorrow at 615 eastern on c-span three. nevada republicans hold caucuses to choose their presidential candidate. we have results throughout the night and we'll hear from the candidates, that is tomorrow night on c-span. >> a number of senators debated whether president obama should nominate someone to replace
antonin scalia who died over one week ago. i will will hear from senate minority leader harry reid it and chuck grassley. >> the democratic leader. >> we are shocked by the sudden passing of justice antonin scalia. justice scalia and i had our differences. there is no doubt his dedication and intelligence. i offer my condolences to the entire scalia family and they lay to rest a devoted husband, father and grandfather this weekend. i watch this funeral and i was deeply impressed with justice coleus son, reverend paul scalia who gave the eulogy he gave his father. it was remarkable. now madame president, our president, president obama has
nominated a qualified individual to the supreme court. once he nominates it is our responsibility to act. unfortunately it appears appears republican colleagues have no intention to fill the vacancy. they have pronounce that they are in gridlock. that is an understatement. in recent years the republican leader, republican senator has done everything possible to bring the government to a halt. now we are seeing something from the republican leader that is far worse than the usual brand of obstruction. we are seeing unprecedented attempt hold hostage an entire branch of government. the damage is already done to the legislative branch and has been written about, the last seven years the republicans have done everything they can to stop
obama's legislative ability to move forward. as leader of this democracy it is too bad that president obama has had to put up with what he has had to put up with this obstruction. everything area the statements from the governor leader just an hour after the death announcement argued that starting now, any president should be allowed, denied the right to appoint someone during a presidential year. one deny president obama's constitutional right. it is a full-blown effort to deal legitimate ties president obama. and it undermines our system of checks and balances. it is detrimental to our constitution. i can find no reason to not i
find no mention, i do find in the constitution article two section two. which clearly provides president obama with the legal authority, actually the legal obligation to nominate someone to the supreme court. this is how our system has operated for 200 years. it is it is essential to the basic functioning of coequal branches of government. what the republican leader is suggesting is inconsistent with the constitution. the founding fathers constructed the american democracy with certain assumptions of us, they expected us to be rational, they expected us to offer in good faith, to be effective.
the republican leader's proposal is none of these things. it is an attempt to nullify what james madison and others envisioned. the founding fathers never intended to have someone run out the clock other constitutional duties. it is the presidents duty. they never in envisioned, a republican party that would render our system useless. there have people believe that it is a long-held practice of for the president to fill a supreme court vacancy and to wait. this is not true. a republican calling repeat this. the fact is when republicans repeat the statement there truly spreading false. it is not true. i have the most respect for my republican friends but reap peter lee
skirting the truth. editor of the blog said and she writes the record does not reveal any instances of the president failing to nominate. >> let me start over historical record does not give any instances since 1900 of a president failing to nominate or the senate ready to confirm nomination in an election year. there's not 11 shred of evidence in the last 116 years to back these claims. democrats never stopped republicans from a hearing. never. let's talk about precedence.
since 1988 which is an election year and the last year of the presidency the senate confirmed a supreme court nominee, more than one. that your democratic senate confirmed president reagan wanted justice anthony kennedy in the final year of his administration. i voted to confirm his nomination. i would hope the junior senator from iowa would listen to what is being said time and again. charles grassley had no problem supporting the nomination then during reagan's last year in office. since that time senator grassley has defended the presidents right. in 2008 senator grassley said and i quote, the senate has never