Of the Richmond Center, i also served as the dean of Columbia Law School from 20042014 which i mention for a very particular reason. I was the dean when professor anu bradford joined our faculty, and its one of my very proud moments is when we persuaded her to do that. So im honored to kick off what i know is going to be a fascinating discussion about the influence of europe on the global marketplace. Last year the wall street journal called the decline of europe as a force in World Affairs the most consequential shift of the last hundred years. And there is some truth in that. Since world war ii the military influence of europe has certainly declined, and its also true that europes Economic Growth has not compared favorably with that of the United States or, for example, with china or india. And, of course, efforts to maintain an Economic Union within europe have been more complicated lately with brexit, as we all know. But still i think professor bradford sees things a little bit differently. And in her new book, the brussels effect the European Union rules the world, which is here and also back there, and you must have a copy, professor bradford argues that the e. U. Remains a critically important economic superpower. And she makes the case very persuasively it continues to wield unilateral power in regulating their market, and that is a phenomenon that anu calls the brussels effect. So what does it mean . Just one of many examples, areas of data privacy, Consumer Health and safety, environmental protection, antitrust and online hate speech. You read about this every day in the newspaper. And whats remarkable is that the e. U. Exerts this influence without coercing anyoned to do anything, its just if you with want to sell in the European Union, you have to comply. So anus book explores this complex topic, and the research has received welldeserved and significant praise. Foreign affairs noted recently that the brussels effect, and i quote, may be the single most important book on europes global influence to appear in a decade. And the financial times, ft, calls this book, quote, the definitive reference guyed for those wishing to guide for those wishing to understand the brussels effect. So we have a treat ahead of us. Before we begin, just a few words about the organizers of tonights event. The jerome a. Chazen institute for global buzz the interdisciplinary hub at Columbia Business School. The institute supports research on Global Business, sponsors provocative forums like this one and sends Columbia Business School students on a host of Global Travel programs. Including study tours and classes during winter and spring break. Im proud to say that next month the Chazen Institute will send its 10,000 student overseas. Thats quite an accomplishment. The other sponsor is the richard Paul Richmond center for business law and Public Policy at Columbia University. Its a joint venture of columbias business and law school. The goal of the Richmond Center is to Foster Collaboration among Columbia Universitys distinguished business and legal scholars in order to generate curricular innovations and advanced researching that has the potential to inform Public Policy as well as the theory and practice of business and and law. Again, just like the brussels effect. So now, without further ado and to explain the brussels effect and it is many implications, im very pleased to welcome anu bradford, Columbia Law School, who is also a chazen senior scholar at column what Business School. And to help lead the conversation, we are very privileged to have peter coy, the economics editor for Bloomberg Business week. Anu and peter will talk for about 45 minutes, and we will then have 15 minutes at the end for q a. Anu will be signing copies of her book which is for sale in the back of the room. Thank you all. [applause] thanks, everybody, for being here. Can i just get a sense of the room in how many people are connected with the Business School in how many people are connected with the law school . Okay m and how many people thought this was about brussels, belgium [laughter] their home country. Okay. En enjoy. [laughter] okay. This is a great book. Hope you all read it. [audio difficulty] i know there are a lot of smart people wholl have comments and questions, so ill probably open it up much sooner than that. But then come back [inaudible] a little consultation. And so youre not going to be completely surprised when i ask you some of these questions, but i want to read just from the introduction a sentence that really grabbed me, because i have to admit, probably like a lot of you, i shareed concern that isnt europe kind of fading . Isnt it really not that important . Whats this brussels effect about . And then she said examples of e. U. s regulatory influence abound across global marks. Laws determine how timber is harvested in indonesia, how honey is produced in brazil, what pesticides Cocoa Farmers use in cameroon, what equipment is installed in dairy factories in china, what chemicals are incorporated in plastic toys in japan as well as how much privacy is afforded to Internet Users in latin america. And you could have gone on for pages with examples like and actually you do. The center chapters of the book are actually explaining the brussels effect in great detail. Then the book goes on chapters 8 and 9 are the kind of policy discussions the kind that policy discussions tend to revolve around. Is the brussels effect good or bad, is part of it. And then whats going to happen next. I have a feeling a lot of the questions and remarks will be about those chapters, but we agreed that we want to spend some time talking about the central core of the book which is just what is the brussels effect, where does it come from, why does it exist, okay . So you write on page 54 that the brussels effect is the same effect that causes hosts to serve fish at a dinner party. Please explain. [laughter] so if you all have a dipper party and you a dinner partyd you are inviting guests and one of them doesnt eat meat, and another one hikes meat, but is dairyfree, you wonder how youre going to tailor your dinner for everybody, have fish and have vegetarian. What you decide is that i may just skip meat and serve the same food for everybody. So in many ways, we tend to graf said towards the standard that graph tate towards the standard that then incorporates everybodys preferences and then forgo the hassle of catering to the needs of every guest that is coming to the house. So thats the concept of nonquiz about. Yeah. Can you just elaborate on what that means . Yeah. Its the very core that explains why a company would have the incentive to extend the european standard across state global operations. So so we all understand that if you are a Global Business and you want to do, you want to trade into the European Markets, you need to follow the european rules. But then you face the question whether you actually follow the same rules across the other markets as well or when you run two separate production lines for those other markets. And often scale economies and other benefits of uniform production lead you to conclude that i will preserve uniform, i do standardize, that accommodates then all the markets. And i can produce one product and serve it across all the markets in which i operate. Sure. And there are different kinds of nondivisibility, right . Theres legal, technical and economic. Can you just blah yeah. So legal, let me start from the legal nondivisibility. I teach competition law and contract law, and one that we study is so e. U. And america and the other regulators around the world have a say on whether certain transactions can proceed. If the u. S. Says that theres nothing wrong with allowing ge and honeywell to merge but the e. U. Says that, no, we do not let that transaction go forward, that transaction is dead worldwide. It is the most strip gent regulator that strip gent regulator that prevails in terms of conflict. So that is an example of legal nondivisibility. So technical nondivisibility, that explain why we have a lot of the tech companies, for instance, follow a single privacy policy. So facebook, google, microsoft, they have one global privacy policy, and it echoes the european policy. Because sometimes technically its too cumbersome to you can use geolocation, but often they want to forgo the risk, and its technically too difficult. Or if you think about, for instance, another example, very different one, from the era of, from the realm of [inaudible] so e. U. Doesnt like gmos, and if you are a farmer, somewhere say now in brazil and you want to serve the European Market, you knead to make sure need to make sure that you dont have gmos. And there is the fear that even if you also had a Market Opportunity in the u. S. Where you could use your gmos, that theres crosspollination. So its technically sometimes difficult to separate the hardest things, the storage, the distribution without crosscontamination. So technically the products become nondivisible. And then i talk about what i think is the biggest category, the economic nondivisibility. And that often is manifested through the scale economy. It just doesnt make sense if you go to the trouble and remove certain tentacles from your product in order to be fixed for the European Market, that you would then insert that chemical back into some of your products for the other markets. So revlon, the cosmetics manufacturer, an american company, has made all its coz met ifics consistent cosmetics consistent with european chemical regulation. And it has not introduced those chemicals with respect to products [inaudible] so it can be scale economies. Also benefits related to having a global brand. So, for instance, the Business Model of facebook. They want to pride themselves in having one facebook and having the global conversation. So if they follow different hate speech forums in america and in europe, you will have it difficult to have a conversation between an american and a european because some speech would not be difficult to some part of the people participating in the conversation. Now, going back to the legal example of nondivisibility, some people would argue that thats, e. U. s going too far there. These are two American Companies yeah. Going back to 2001, and shouldnt they be allowed to merge. It seems like an example of extraterritoriality. Would you with say it is or isnt . Yeah. So it is extraterritorial in the sense that the merger affects the European Market, it affects the european consumers. And if you think about what would be the they were, that the companies could just list themselves in a place outside of europe and be allowed to escape the merger review, is so its very difficult to think about an area like merger review where you could have a Forum Shopping whereby you can opt into conversation that does not care about mergers. I think there is a valid criticism that what happens is it does lodge the standards up and theres a legitimate concern whether we always have the that event u. Gets it wrong wrong e. U. Gets it wrong. Yeah. One of the most fascinating aspects of the brussels effect is that it represents a race to the top. When people think about regulation, they worry about a race to the bottom. People will naturally gravitate towards the place where theres the least regulation. Is there a race to the bottom, or is there a race to the top or a little bit of both in the world . Yeah. So there are the lots of Public Discourse associated with this idea that International Trade and economic globalization inevitably leads to the lowering of the standards. So the idea that the countries want to gain comparative advantage and boost the ability of companies to compete by lowering the environment standards, the burdens on the companies and areas of the regulations. But the empirical scholarship doesnt actually show this one to be true. So the companies are not locating and trying to relocate to pollution havens or trying to engage in practices that will be consistent with this hypothesis. But but the brussels effect really lays out a rationale that leads companies to ratchet up the standards. So what we dont even need to see is the race to the top in the sense that the u. S. Would be emulating event u. Standards. Even though that happens in some areas as well, that the e. U. Standards get replicated by the governments meaning we see the kind of race to the top. But the core of the brussels effect is that we see this de facto race to the top where the American Companies start producing even in america to the e. U. Standards even if they werent required to do is so by u. S. Law. Right, yeah. So i have a lot more questions, but as i said, i really do want to get the audience involved early on. So if you have i dont know, whats the deal with the mics . Okay. Well bring a mic to you. Anybody have a question now . Okay, i see one right here. State your name, please. Im from the the Business School. I appreciate that youre sharing a lot with regards to how the laws may affect, say, companies in america or the developed world. What does it mean for entities or the economy in the emerging markets such as in africa or asia and how those laws are shaping the race to the top, as you quote it . Yeah. So i think partially its a question as how it is impacting them as a descriptive matter. What we see is that the Companies Operating in these markets, to the extent that theyre exporters, to the extent that they are exporting to the European Market are adjusting their practices. So they are adopting the e. U. , sometimes reluctantly. But as the only way to continue to do trade in europe. The other question is whether its actually good or bad for the development of the country, do the governments hike this idea. And there i talk a little bit about this in the book. I think it can go both ways. There can be a criticism, for instance, relating to gmo. That what e. U. Is forcing the african farmers to do is not good for africa, and they would need the gmos to feed their population. But theres Research Showing that that actually allows them to develop products that allow them to tap into the higher levels of the market and actually be better off financially in the end. A lot of, for instance, the example that you mentioned on cameroonian farmers, the cocoa beans, now they have a stamp of approval when they meet the european standards because they have shown that the quality of the coffee or cocoa beans. So in many ways, it can also serve these companies, and it can also serve some governments who, for instance, are [inaudible] they do not have the capacity to stop mergers that may be harming their consumers. They do not have the capacity to enact the kind of privacy regulations or chemical regulations that keep their consumers and citizens safe. So some of them quite happily free ride, if you like to use the term, on the efforts of the european regulators that would increase the price to consumers in africa. So i think theres no single answer that would lead these governments always to embrace or to criticize the brussels effect, but it depends on an industry and on the actors. Heres a question here in the second row. Hi, Peter Strauss from the law school. A very happy colleague of anus. Before you published the brussels effect, a couple of scholars published another book with a kind of similar overtone, our new global rulers, in which they focused on the hegemony of the International Standards organization. And i wonder if its a part of the brussels effect that brussels has 27 votes in the International Standards organization and other countries have only one. Yeah. So there is some criticism occasionally of the e. U. s strategic ability to lever its 27 votes when it needs to get something done. Yes, use it to basically regulate with a single voice. But at the same time, the standard setting, i think it has an interesting interact with the brussels effect, because if you look at a lot of the e. U. s own standards, the event u. Regulations e. U. Regulations, they can be modeled after International Standards which e. U. Then takes on to its regulation and [inaudible] its advancing not only e. U. s regulatory vision, but a vision of an international organization. At the same time, given those 27 votes and the e. U. s experience, e. U. Is quite effective in affecting and influencing the standards that do emerge from those organizations. So it is a twoway street. What i come across in the research, allowing itself to be influenced by those standards that emanate from those institutions. Ill go to one question and then ill come to you next. Theres a question back there too, or well get you. There was an example in the book of the e. U. Overreaching an emissions trading scheme involving airlines. Can you walk through that story and why that came out differently . Yeah. That was a very fascinating story. We all know that Climate Change is one of the policy priorities for the e. U. We also know that multinational corporations in tackling Climate Change have been limited. So the e. U. Has decided to try to move ahead on its own and using partially the brussels effect. This was the story i engaged with in the book, when the e. U. Tried to extend to aviation, it meant that if you are american airlines, you are flying from new york to london, from new york to paris, you would need to basically buy permits for the duration of the entire flight even if only a small part of it takes place in the european air space. And the same thing. If your flying back to the United States and your plane takes off from a european airport. And this was extraterritorial in the sense that it caused a massive backlash by foreign governments but also foreign airlines. Who then used their collective power to lobby against it and automatically threatened the e. U. , chinese airlines, were not going to buy airbus planes. So e. U. Would lost massive [inaudible] that if you have collective response from the business community. So e. U. Needed to back off and say it is not Going Forward with this extension to aviation when it applies to noneuropean planes. But it [inaudible] for the brussels effect because what the e. U. Managed to do, it managed to catalyze International Negotiations and joint setting of standards when it comes to emissions trading in the aviation industry. Because e. U. Had the Bargaining Power of the knowledge that the event u. Would be doing something unilaterally and the other actors [inaudible] so i think its an interesting effect of the limits of the brussels effect but also the way it can catalyze international corporations. Okay. You had a question. Please identify yourself. Can you talk how you developed this strong power to be judgment maker, and what percentage of, lets say, buying power, lets say food purchase, what percentage would the e. U. Be that people are so then and then lastly, just on two categories with, say, u. S. Relationship with the e. U. In terms of having more quality of food in the United States and then with the issue of the development of, say, production and stock market. Can you talk about e. U. Effect in those two areas. Let me start from the beginning. The theory of the brussels effect, even though its called the brussels effect, its basically a road map that explains how a single jurisdiction can unilaterally set the global standards. What are the elements that are required. So we could see a washington effect, we could see one day a beijing effect. But why dont we see those. So one actually what we dont fully appreciate is that until 1990s it was the United States that set the global standards. They emanated from here. We were the environmental leaders. But then they traded plaitses. The part of places. The part of the california effect has explain how the u. S. Has basically ceded the stage for the European Union. Why 1990 new zealand so the e. U. Not only stepped in where the u. S. Was trading, it was also the moment when the e. U. Was very deliberately building the single market. So e. U. Always had that made it much easier to get all these regulations through the political process. If you want to regulate the environment, you want to deliver the environmental benefit, protect the environment, but you also remove the barriers are from trading across the Common Market when we have more harmonized standards. You yet the left and the right you get the left and the right to coalesce. Even the brits who were quite skeptical with the regulations, they loved the single market, and they loved free trade across the Common Market. So in many ways, they could easier to build coalitions, to build consensus. There are additional reasons that i discuss in the book, and some of these issues havent become as polarized in the Political Climate in the e. U. , we have the support, for instance, for the environmental regulation in the left and in the right, the same with data protection, same with antitrust. So they should have not been [inaudible] u. S. Legislators. Then you spoke a little bit about, for instance, what would it take, how big of a buyer the would the e. Yiew. E. U. Need to be to affect [inaudible] if you are very proenvironment and you want to set the global standards, you cannot do it because the companies have decided to forgo in costa rica. Theres no magic number that i can say that as long as you have this many consumers, you will be able to set the standards. What the e. U. Has going for it is that its a large and relatively wealthy market. The gdp per capita in can china is going to be for a long time behind e. U. , so the buying power among the affluent consumers in the e. U. Is still hard to forgo. U. S. Is even more affluent. Theres no magic number. For instance, in food safety, if you think about in the agriculture, e. U. Is not a major market for american farmers. Yet we have seen the risk aversion partially to steer them away from gmos. As long as you have a long supply chain and you want to make sure that everybody in the chain is [inaudible] yeah. Im going to go back here. Microphone. Please identify yourself. Yes. Hi, im cynthia roberts, i teach an International Security program here at columbia. Is so my questions a little bit out of left field, but i couldnt resist coming. I teach also european if securities this semester. I couldnt resist coming to a talk on the brussels effect and how the e. U. Rules the world in part because of some of the questions asked at the beginning. But there are two other domains besides food that i want to raise for you and get your feedback. One is an area both are areas where the u. S. Is dominant, so i wonder if theres any crossdomain effects that we could learn are from your work on regulatory interest. One is a little bit closer than the other, and that, of course, is the financial world where the u. S. Is by far the dominant player. We closed European Countries out of the u. S. Financial system for violating regulations on trading with terrorists or what have you. European banks paid penalties, we closed countries out of the u. S. Financial system as coercion through sanctions. So this has hurt the e. U. Recently in the way that theyve tried to come back with a financial instrument to combat this unsuccessfully. So one question arises from that experience whether the e. U. Will fix its euro problem and well see a brussels effect there. The second is the area of specific interest to my course on defense sector. And there, too, we see more inefficiencies than efficient. The European Market, for example, has more helicopters being sold than there are countries to why to buy them. Everything is inefficient in defense in europe with. It makes the u. S. Look quite efficient, and we have our own problems. So one answer you might give is thats because the europeans dont like to spend money on defense. We know that well. But its still much worse than you would predict. Why is there not sufficient regulation . Is and theres some effort to move in that direction, but its still not there. If you could give your thoughts, id be very grateful. Thank you. Great. So the two areas that you identify when we talk about the Financial Markets in the eurozone, thats where the powers havent been fully transferred to the center. Thats where the United States are still primarily e in challenger. Yes, monetary chong is policy is still Monetary Policy is still an e. U. Matter, but [inaudible] we would be able to complete, if you like, the building of the eurozone architecture. I think what the euro crisis has taught europe, that its a very uncomfortable place to live in this alignment. And the e. U. Has try thed to move to that direction. Massive reforms are underway. There i think what we still see is a gap between what economics requires and what politics can deliver. And it is hard for me to speculate and predict whether the e. U. Will ultimately get there, but i think its a harder road. The other one i think it is you mentioned with financial sanctions. E. U. Will not have the kind of power that the u. S. Has when it comes to use aing, for instance, financial sanctions. The government tried to claim [inaudible] cannot do the others which means in other areas, thats where the event u. Would need to use Political Capital and so forth. Again, Member States are primarily [inaudible] so theres no common european army. And youre absolutely right, there hasnt even been the willingness to make some investment. E. U. Has not wanted to be a superpower. So the question and the definition of power is when you your enemy. The e. U. Is never going to win that game, and it hasnt even bought into that game. But right now with less certainty the on whether the u. S. Will be there to support the e. U. , the more aertive russia, so assertive russia, so there has been emerging conversations that the e. U. Needs to do something about this. We may actually see with brexit, because the u. K. Has been quite reluctant to military cooperation focusing rather on nato, whether we will see some move [inaudible] we already have a european defund and defense fund rain other initiatives that shows that the u. S. Is testing those waters and trying to see if they can get there, but again, the politics get more complicated. Ill step in with a question. It has to do with something that i expected to have arisen by now so ill raise it which is brexit. There is one writer who beat you to it when he talked about the power of brussels, and thats Boris Johnson yeah. As a journal. Ist. [laughter] actually sometimes making up fake stories about crazy e. U. Regulations and trying to rile up brits against the e. U. , and now hes the prime minister, and so he has managed to pull the country out of the e. U. And you is have some thoughts about whether he will succeed in giving britons the distance from the e. U. That he seeks. Yeah. So this is something i take on in the book, and it is one to have main reasons to write the book, is that the e. U. Was in the midst of this massive development. It would seen the weaken the e. U. And the brussels effect. But the claim that i make in the book about the brussels effect and its interwith action with brexit is that brexit doesnt really mean brexit in practice. There is no such thing awaiting on the other side of brexits that the brits call regulatory freedom. The brexit will not liberate the u. K. Government and the companies from event u. s regulatory wage. And why is that . About 45 of the u. K. s trade 45 of the u. K. s trade depends on access to the e. U. Market. Thats not going to change after brexit. So if you think about many of the Major Industries in the u. K. , e. U. Is the number one destination for aerospace, for automobiles, for chemicals, for pharmaceuticals, for telecommunications, for [inaudible] services. These Companies Need access to the e. U. Markets long after leaving the e. U. , and to have access, they need to abide by the e. U. Rules. So the question now is would they want to have a separate production line, for instance, to serve the u. K. Car market which is six times more than the e. U. Car market when they anyway already make the cars that are consistent with the e. U. Regulations. So thats what i feel that Boris Johnson, it is one of the grand false promises of the Brexit Campaign to say that the e. U. , that they would that the event u. No longer pushes the Companies Towards regulatory alignment. And if you look at what they have asked to stay as close to the e. U. Regulations because thats their interest. They need that market. And each u. K. Government. If you look at the comments of the commissioner who says, well, brexit doesnt really mean brexit when it comes to data privacy, because threequarters of the data flow from e. U. Countries are its very hard to chart your own path. It goes against the fundamental logic of how Global Markets work. Sure, yeah, yeah. All right. Im going to take one there and then see where we go next. Im patrick steiner, i work for the new york fed and uma columbia grad. Im a columbia grad. Im interested in innovation and how you think about that. Making regulations takes a long time, its slow, its responsive. And so if you want an innovative economy, you know, some of the choices that the u. S. Has made not to regulate things, for example, tsm in the Telecom Space where europe had a standard and the didnt, im just curious how you think about allowing innovation given regulations that can get in the way of it. Right. So it is a great, timely question if you look at Mark Zuckerberg going to brussels asking for more regulations like the other u. S. Tech companies, e. U. Just unveiled its white paper on the of a. I. , and these u. S. Tech companies are saying they welcome that. It is somewhat unclear what thing regulation is always against Economic Growth, whether its against innovation. I think it should give us some pause that the e. U. Is behind when it comes to the Big Tech Companies that rely on innovation. So event u. Definitely has work to be done there. But if you think about where the regulation is necessarily hindering innovation, i think that is not clear. So one of, some of these tech companies, for instance, say that we do not want to be unregulated. We need consumers to trust our products. We need to have reputation that builds on us, to them believing we take privacy seriously. Companies like microsoft have really made privacy as core part of their Business Strategy and how they profile themselves. And here i want to cite a terrific book by nyu professor felixson on how america gave up on free markets. Its called great reversal and shows a lot of the research how European Markets are are actually more competitive than american markets partially because the markets have become so concentrated because of the lack of antitrust regulation in the u. S. Market. So what weve seen is massive growth in profits but also growth in consumer prices. So, and if you think about many examples in energy efficiency, when you hold the companies to Higher Standards in terms of energy efficiency, that doesnt mean that they dont innovate towards better product. That would actually also allow them to [inaudible] im going to follow up on that one. Specifically the precautionary principle yeah. Which is the principle that the e. U. Uses to decide whether something is safe. It is different from the cost benefit analysis thats used by american regulators. Yeah. And americans would say that the precautionary principle is not well founded because theres no necessarily safe level that we can be certain of. Talk about the pros and cons of that. Yeah. So there is fundamental, i say rather fundamental philosophical distinction in terms of where you place your faith as a society and how much do you have in markets ability to selfcorrect versus regulators ability to get it right. And in europe theres much more fear that the regulators dont step in when they should, and the markets actually can fail. Whereas in the u. S. There has been much more of a presumption that we rather trust markets than we trust the government. And this precautionary principle, in a sense it gives the regulators the right to go ahead even in the absence of certainty of some risk materializing. To youre not absolutely certain that some chemicals cannot harm the consumers. The europeans it gives them the precautionary notion that they [inaudible] and the u. S. Cross the line differently. [inaudible] part of the Digital Economy now in the e. U. , in both the principles today when it comes to Artificial Intelligence saying that there are many risks, even though there are opportunities with this technology and this goes to your question on innovation, we could be hampering innovation if we are too radical in regulating. But there are also up intended, unexplored consequences. We to not exactly know how these technologies affect the individuals, shape the societies, and we may, for instance, ban them temporarily before we learn more about their consequences. The okay. So im going to go here and then got a couple more. Ill go to [inaudible] im a journalist. Id like to bring up a brussels effect that every one of us is familiar with that operates a browser which is these insincere consent notices or notices on every web page to consent to terms that when you agree in many cases actually end up violating the gdpr because youre granting consent to being tracked after all. So id like to get your thoughts on that and whether or not the gdpr is doing what the e. U. Wanted it to do. So gdpr was a rather monumental shift globally in the regulation of privacy. It was something that, for instance, u. S. Government and u. S. Companies opposed quite vehemently. But then came cambridge analytica. Global politics moved toward the e. U. That gave its position much more credibility to say that, look, we do need to care about privacy, we do need to it to set some standards for these corporations. And what are really the [inaudible] when your privacy is compromised. It is one of those whether the e. U. Actually got it absolutely right. I think it remains to be seen how it unfolds. There are certain concerns that i have when it comes to the impact, institutional impact, its much easier for the Big Companies to comply we the gdpr. It is much harder for small players to do so. That is certainly not what the e. U. Intended, but that would be, again, the e. U. s idea that we want to level the Playing Field and insure that startups can compete. So there may need to be some rethinking on the regulation. But i think when it comes to the evolution of [inaudible] and i think there are very few who say that e. U. Is not getting it right or doing, not doing it for the right reasons. Whether the regulation needs to be [inaudible] to still make sure that we do not have excessive regulation or we do not into unintended consequences, im willing to anytime that that is likely, that thats some of the criticism. But the foundational idea that the e. U. Is setting the Gold Standard that makes us rethink the value of individual privacy, shaping the global conversations, and we now have over a hundred countries around the world that have emulated the gdpr. And, again, facebook and the others actually calling for the u. S. Federal government gdp type of regulation. This clearly is Political Support towards regulating gdpr much more in the e. U. Style. Okay. More questions. You had one, didnt you . No, no. All right. So this gentleman right behind, right there. Yes. Identify yourself, please. Yeah. [inaudible] goldberg, Columbia Law School, formerly. I was curious when you mentioned the precautionary standard. Seemed to me that the fda has all been extremely conservative about letting Pharmaceuticals Get on to the market, my impression is that europe the reverse. Am i wrong in that . So the one sort of criteria for the brussels effect is that the e. U. Would be the most stringent. So in areas where the e. U. Is not the most stringent regulator, and there are certainly, im sure, many examples of certain medications, for instance, where the fda may be more stringent. There are examples of food safety as well that the e. U. Is not the most strip gent, areas like gambling where the u. S. Is more stringent and the food safety when it comes to pat curized pasteurized dairy products, when it comes to regulation of tobacco, u. S. Is more strip gent. So the claim is not that the e. U. Always prevails because it is the most stringent because there are examples where the e. U. Is not doing so. But those are rather counterexamples instead of minority if you look at the overall propensity to regular late which still is that the e. U like pharmaceuticals, you could actually [inaudible] market in a lot of different ways because its easy to produce pills in one market and a different set of pills for another. So in that sense, you would not necessarily have either side dominating in that way. Yeah. There are some examples that i discuss in the book, for instance, a Japanese Company that failed to get where the e. U. Was more stringent, failed to get approval for their drug in the e. U. One thing that they did was they did not elevate the drug production standard to that of the e. U. , but they ended up pulling out of the e. U. Market, but they still serve the u. S. Market that is not as stringent when it comes to this particular drug. Toward the end we will go until 8 00 p. M. Which is your chapter nine, what comes next. Uk is out of the eu, this ties back to the remark before, you have some really interesting observations about how the eu could continue to have a lot of influence even if it were shrunken and even if it were there was internal battles over things like monetary and fiscal policy the regulatory juggernaut could keep surging forward its always a somewhat uncomfortable position to speculate and predict what it will look like. I do offer some thoughts in a way to think about where the world is going. The prediction, if you like to use that word, the eu Regulatory Power will outlive, to some extent, or prolong that would be purely based on its ability to grow and have relative marketplace. The reason is the following, if you think about the obvious question this is somewhere where david started that china is rising and if you look at its no matter what you look at the relative market site of the eu will decline. Emerging markets will take over in many ways. It would suggest that most likely brussels will also shrink because there are opportunities to forgo the markets and trade elsewhere. I think its going to be a while before that hell happened. First of all, why would it ab overall gdp is not as good of a predictor of the countrys ability to regulate than the gdp would capitalize. You need to have wealthy enough consumers to have the kind of demand for regulation that exists in the eu. Thats going to take a long while before china gets there. By the time china gets there, most likely its overall growth in the overall gdp is not at the level where the government would be as willing to impose regulations for the growth. Chinas growth relies on exports. Its the important jurisdictions that are setting the standard like the eu is setting. I think it will be a while before that will happen. China also doesnt have the kind of regulatory architecture that the legal institutions that allow it to convert his regulatory market into actual revelatory influence. To the extent china is building its actually copying the eu legislation. Its importing a lot of the eu principles and antitrust regulations. To some extent on data as well. On environmental law. What we may see one day that if there is a beijing event, its beijing thats exporting further the regulations we are imported from the eu in the first place. Thats one argument on the external threats that i do not deny the importance of chinas growth and the importance that china will exert on Global Economy but i think the eu has more of a runway then pure focus on gdp would suggest. I also talk a little bit about the role of technology and if you think about it, concept we started on this nondisability that to the extent the companies could divide the production and produce more cheaply products with different markets it could rule allow them to restrict the impact of the eu regulations to the eu market. We have some technologies like 3d printing and others that have edited manufacturing that make it possible potentially in the future to localize the production. He would not need to rely as much on scale economies and reduction. That could potentially compromise the brussels effect because there is no need to standardize to the same extent. If technologies are still to some extent in the infancy and its hard to predict how quickly they would be deployed at the scale that we would see a transformation of a large number of industries. Those are some of the examples of why i think we will see the brussels conflict continue for a long time. Even if you think about the internal abinternal threats, theres a lot of conversations internally that are shaped by the rise of the antieu parties. They may be a real threat to what comes from within the eu. If theyre starting to rain and the powers they are willing to delegate to brussels and how can brussels then propagate these regulations . If you think about that the core of the antieu sentiment and the various parties in poland, in hungary, they dont worry about gdp are. They dont worry about environmental protection. Theyre not worried about the eu going after big u. S. Companies and Technology Sector using antitrust laws. They are worried about migration, control over the judiciary, control over a free press and these are not the core of the single market. There could be ripple effects, they generally start having the countries go against anything that comes from brussels but this is not the battles they are taking on. I think its a really interesting point not intuitively obviously unless you spell it out it makes a lot of sense. We are going to take a few more questions. I think you in the back row had something . Identify yourself please. Angela jones. I just had two questions. abas most markets grow would you think this can influence the content of the rules that the eu will make especially when its a difference of human rights and more contentious topics . I think the most contentious topic interrelated the question so where the eu worries that it needs to exert technological sovereignty and the big debate where the eu is divided is the interest of who would be the 5g networks and how should we approach influence in all of our economies i dont think theres one way the government stick about it. There is a concern of how china is really investing massively in the development of ai. The eu has the need to restrain some of those efforts. I think thats one of the ab today was a very monumental day unveiled. Its white paper on the regulation of ai and facial recognition technique. Its recent partially with china in mind. We will see how eu will move into the space but i think eu is aware that it has potential ability to shape these technologies through regulation. I think an interesting question is that eu shared interest with the United States and its an area thats not as entrenched in both markets and how we regulate and could be an opportunity for the u. S. And the eu to try to set the some of the standards jointly. Take a question right there in the black . Right in front of you. My name is ellie im a journalist. My question is about brexit because i was born in the uk so im particularly interested in that. This might be an obvious answer but when you say that the eu banks on 45 percent of uks market what was the point of brexit . Thats a very good question. Its one of those that i think i regret how the campaign was and how much is misinformation and promises we are given to people and how when you announce a referendum, something so complicated its very risky to hand it over to people. Even though you could lay the basic argument abi think brexit is much easier to deliver as a slogan that a viable policy. Thats i think what the uk will learn the hard way. The hard thing is the abrupt departure is very difficult to unfold. The uk now has one year extension and set by Boris Johnson who says i dont want extensions. We will be out in the extension period will not go beyond that. The difficulty is that all we managed to do thus far is for the uk to leave. The future relationship is still up for negotiation. Now we have a year to reach trade agreement that shapes the future Economic Partnership within the uk and the eu. It took about seven years to negotiate a trade agreement with canada. We tried to fasttrack this and get this done in a year and its an absolute deadline and we need to get it done. Otherwise it will be very ugly. He needs to take a priority and if you think when the uk as part of Global Britain is negotiating with the u. S. , negotiating with public trade partners, the eu needs to do the deadline. They need to get it done by the end of the year. What my prediction is we end up with something its not even in the eu interest not to have a deal in the end of that. It needs to be something rather basic. We need to continue to build on that. Brexit is far from over in many ways its just the beginning. And how we come up with the kind of roles that will somehow determine the partnership Going Forward. Maybe one or two more questions and theres one right here. Good evening. Name is martin and from portugal stuttering at abon the china versus eu topic where you are mentioning that prevailing still is influencing for sources china. Theres one topic i dont think i agree with you which is the energy and Renewable Energy europe is had a very positive impact but china with all the volume has been a Real Driving Force to reduce the cost of renewables, especially Wind Turbines and recently with solar panels. Whats your take on that . In the Renewable Energy and to have a real impact on Climate Change you have to have volume. You have to have a lot of big sides in your plexaderm. In the early to 30 years hasnt been able to lead a revolution. Eu would welcome that. Their partners when it comes to fighting Climate Change. The more china is able to pursue developments that leads its energy that produces to be more efficient, it serves the same goal. Eu is back in a fight the goal of solving the Climate Change on its own. This is probably going to be one of the most welcomed chinese policy that allows the eu and china to see eye to eye. Obviously theres a question of competitiveness in the Chinese Companies can get a big market share but if you think about the driving factor in the motivator behind the technologies that something i think the eu will be celebrating the chinese. Any more questions . Lets take one right here. My name is Joyce Searles and im privacy and Digital Identity activist. We have colleagues at the university of southampton about a year ago did a paper called for intranets it was about the european internet which is primarily around sort of social and humanistic norms and the american internet, which is commercial, the chinese, which is topdown it was sort of played, that was still a question it was open. Looking at that paper and many things that have happened in the ensuing year. It seems to me that the eu, its like a moment in time. Its like the eu if it could get over like an in for your already complex it has could really take the lead to go forward with the things we want for this technology and all the things to work for global society. Im just wondering if you think the eu has that kind of guts. And going to work on that inferiority complex next week im going to brussels i will be meeting with a lot of people and trying to convince them of the power that they have it they have not fully internalized it. I think the eu is internalizing it. Its really interesting in my earlier conversation with one of the questions i explained how this brussels really emulated from an internal gold to build the single market. The goal was not to set the global standard. Not so much anymore you see a shift in the eu communication over the last 10 years where the eu actually understands it has the opportunities to shift the global regulatory landscape. It does care about the outcome if you think about issues like data privacy when the eu cares about the right to people gardens, the idea that something could still be Information Online to try to be forgotten would require the platforms to erase information thats inaccurate or no longer relevant. The eu has been toying with the idea it can extend that globally. I think there is a desire to seize the opportunity and shape the global standard setting in an area that the eu deeply cares about. Its this digital paternalist edits required to balance the technical libertarian views aggregated by the United States and the digital position that segments by the chinese. I want to thank the audience and think professor bradford for the great conversation. How the the brussels effects. [applause] i will add my thanks and extend particular gratitude to colleagues at the shaman institute and Richmond Center for all their good works. [applause] you are watching booktv on cspan2. Every weekend 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books coming up this evening on our Author Interview program afterwards lee druckman always views that the two parties system is damaging americas democracy. Also this weekend Columbia University professor Jennifer Hirsch looks at the social roots of Sexual Assault on college campuses. Former chicago mayor and chief of staff to president Obama Rahm Emanuel provides firsthand account of how innovation is taking place in cities across the country. Editor need Jill Wine Banks reflects on her little that included her role in the watergate case as one of the three assistant special prosecutors. Check your Program Guide or visit booktv. Org for more information. At a recent program at the American Enterprise institute in Washington Dc University of Oklahoma History professor Wilford Mcclay offered a look at American History that he hopes will rival textbooks used by students today. Here he shares his thoughts on the history of slavery in the founding of america. Hence it would be profoundly wrong to contend as some do that the United States was founded on slavery. It was founded on other principles entirely, on principles of liberty and selfrule that had been discovered and defined and refined and enshrined through the tempering efforts of several turbulent centuries. These foundational principles would win out in the end. Not without much struggle and striving and eventual bloodshed. The United States enjoyed a miraculous birth but was not the product of an unstained conception and untroubled delivery. Few things are. I wrote these words before the publication of the New York Times 1619 project which i suspect you all are somewhat familiar with. Which does in fact exist on the idea that america was founded on slavery and the project we are told producing, distributing materials for use in american schools to promote that idea. Absent countervailing argument from books like mine there is no genuine danger that part of the education of American Students will be the teaching that slavery is part of the nations enduring makeup, its dna as a metaphor they use too comfortably. A lesson that would not only be false but pernicious. To watch the rest of this Program Visit our website booktv. Org and search for Wilford Mcclay or the title of his book land of hope using the box at the top of the page. Good evening. I went to thank you all for coming to politics and prose, my name is abwe host close to a thousand events a year for a full list of everything confirmed for the next three months you can visit our website or pick up one of our printed events calendars. Before we get started today id like to ask everyone to silence your cell phones so as not to disrupt the event. When its time for q a i would ask you to come up to this microphone right