Bradford on the power and influence on the European Union. Its a subject of her book the brussels effect. Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for being with us. I am David Schizer one of the codirectors of the Richmond Center and i i also served of Columbia Law School from 20,422,014 which i mentor for a very particular reason, i was the dean when professor anu bradford joined our faculty and its one of my brightest moments to persuade her to do that. Im on a stick kickoff a fascinating discussion about the influence of europe on the global marketplace. Last year, the wall street journal called the decline w of europe as a remote consequential shift of the last hundred years. There is some truth in that t since world war ii, the military influence in europe declined and also true that europes Economic Growth has not compared favorably with that of the United States or with china or india. And of course efforts to maintain an Economic Union so europe has been more complicated lately with brexit as we all know but 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 haveac a cop. Professor bradford argues that the remains are critically important economic superpower. And she makes the case very persuasively, it continues to yield in lateral power in regulating their market and thats a phenomenon called the brussels effect. What does it mean, many, many examples, the eu shapes policies in areas for privacy and Consumer Health and safety of the mental protection, antitrust and online hate speech, you read about this every day in e the paper. What is remarkable that you exert this influence without coercing everyone to do anything, its if you want to sell any European Union you have to comply. So his book explores the b compx topic in the research has received welldeserved and significant praise. Foreign affairs noted recently that the brussels effect may be the single most important book on your mobile influence to appear in a decade. The Financial Times called this albook the definitive reference guide for those wishing to understand the brussels effect. So we have a a treat ahead of us before we begin, a few words about the organizers about tonights event. An institute for Global Business is entered to disciplinary hub of Global Business of Columbia Business School. Institute supports research on Global Business sponsors provocative forms likee this one and since Columbia Business School students on a host of globalal programs including stuy tours and classes during winter and spring break, and proud to say the next month that the institute will send 10000 students overseas, that is quite an accomplishment. The other sponsors impoverishment center for business law and Public Policy of Columbia University. Its a joint venture of columbias business and law school. The goal is to Foster Collaboration among Columbia University distinguished business and legal scholars in order to generate curricular innovations, advanced research that has the potential to infort Public Policy as well as practice just like brussels is fact. Withouts further ado to explain the brussels effect and its many implications, im pleased to it welcome anu bradford of the Columbia Law School who is also a senior scholar at Columbia Business School. And we are very privileged to have peter coy, economics editor for bloomberg businessweek. Anu and peter will talk to 45 minutes and then will have 15 minutes at the end for q a. Also she will be signing copies of her book which is for sale in the back of the room. Thank you all. [applause] thank you everybody for being here, can i get a sense in the room, how many people are connected with the business school. How many people are connected to theeo law school . And how many people thought this was about brussels belgium. [laughter] so enjoyed. This is a great book, i hope you all read it. I will not take this to 45 minutes because i know theres a lot of smart people that will have comments and questions that i might not have thought of but i will probably open up much sooner but then come back and to other questions. And then will have some conversation so you not to be completely surprised when i ask you these questions. I want to read from the introduction in the sense that got me, probably like a lot of you i share concern that is europe dating, isnt it really nott that important and i said examples of eus regulatory abound across global market, they determine how timber is harvested in indonesia and honey is produced in brazil, what pesticides Cocoa Farmers using camarillo, what chemicals are incorporated in plastic toysls n japan as well as how much privacy is imported to Internet Users in latin america. You could have gone on with pages of examples. The center chapters ofof the bok are explaining the brussels effect in great detail. The book goes on to Chapter Eight and nine and is a brussels effect good or bad and whats going to happen next, eight is the good or bad and nine is what happens to the next, and the feeling of a lot of questions and remarks will be about the chapters but we agreed we want to spend some time talking about the central core of the book where does it come from, why does it exist. You write on page 54 the brussels effect is the same effect that cause hostess or fish at ave dinner party. Police explain. [laughter] if you are having a dinner party and you are inviting a guest in one does not eat meat and then another one likes meat but its glutenfree. So then you wonder if you are going to tailor your dinner and i dont need this and have fish and vegetarian. Instead what you decide they may need to skip it and serve the same food for everybody. In many ways we tend to gravitate towards the center that incorporates everybodys preferences. In the hassle of catering to individualized needs for every guess that is coming to the house. That is the concept of nondivisibility can you elaborate on what that means. The nondisability is a ver very it explains why they have the european standard across the goebel is a sham. We understand if you are a Global Business and you want to do trade for the European Market. You want to follow the rules. And then whether you follow the same rules across the other market itself or whether you want a separate production line for the other markets. In the economy of uniform production lead you to conclude that i will perform uniformity, i do standardize because that accommodates in all the markets. And i can produce one product and across all the markets that i operate. There are different kinds of nondivisibility, legal, technical and economic. Legal, let me start from the legal not disability. I did competition law in one study emerges. In america and the other regulators around the world have a say on where transaction can defeat. If the u. S. Is theres nothing log withh allowing ge in the deo says no, we did not let the transaction go forward, that transaction is dead worldwide. It is the most regulator that prevails, you cannot have third and global in one jurisdiction but not in another. So technical nondisability explains why we have a lot of the Tech Companies for an a instant following a single Privacy Policy. So facebook, google, microsoft, they have a Privacy Policy and echoes the europeanol policy. And sometimes it is too cumbersome to divide and you can do locationsu but often they wt to promote the risk and expected to be too difficult and you think of another example of f different ones from the era of safety. So eu is just like gmos. If you are a farmer say from brazil and you want to serve in European Market, you need to make sure you do not have gmos in your products. There is a few even if you also had a Market Opportunity in the u. S. , theres crosspollination. So technically sometime it is difficult to separate the cultivation, the hardest thing, the story, c distribution. So ten times the products become nondivisible. And then i talk about what i think is the biggest category, then onn disability, that is a scale economy. It does not make sense if you remove certain chemicals from your product in order to be safe for the European Market that you will then insert the chemical back into some of your product for the other market. So the cosmetic manufacture in American Companies has made all of its cosmetics consistent with european chemical regulation. It hasas not been introduced or kept those chemicals with products for the newest market. The scale economy also benefit relating to have a global brand. For instance the Business Model of facebook, they want to pride themselves on having one facebook and having a single global conversation. So if they follow different hate speech in america and in europe, you will have a difficult to have a conversation between an american and european. Because some speech would not be visible to some people. Going back to the legal example of nondivisibility but some people would argue that that is going too far, these are two American Companies, this goes back to 2001 and shouldnt they be allowed to merge. He seems like an example of expiratory reality it either it is word isnt. It is expiratory terry and in a sense but those are the facts of the European Market and the consumers and if you think about what would be the alternative, the companies that listed herself in a place outside of europe and the merger review. It is very difficult to think about an area where you can have a Forum Shopping where you can opt into some jurisdiction that does not care about the mergers. And it does fracture ratchet thd up in their legitimate concern whether we have the ultimo standard marketplace. One of those fascinating aspects of the brussels effect represents a race to the top and they worry about a race to the bottom so people actually gravitate to the place where theres a leas regulation. Is there a race to the bottom or is there race to the top or is there both in the world. There are lots of colors in Public Discourse associated with this idea the International Trade and globalization inevitably leads to the lowering of the standards and the idea that the countries want to gain competitive advantage and boost them to compete by lowering the environment standards and the burdens on the companies and the safety regulations. But the scholarship does not show this one to be true, the companies are not locating and trying to relocate or try to engage in practices that will be consistent with the hypothesis. But the brussels of cracks lays out a business rationale that leads the companies voluntarily to ratchet up the standard. What we dont need to see is the rates that the u. S. Will be ventilating in your standards. That happens in some areas as well, that the standards get replicated by the government in race to the top. But the core of this is that we see a race to the top or the American Companies start producing even in america to the new standard even if they went to do so by u. S. Law. I have a lot more questions but as i said i really do want to get the audience involved early on so i dont know what the deal is with the mike, we will bring a mike teal, does anybody have a question now, i see wondering here. State your name. I am from the biz and group. I appreciate you sharing with regards to how the law affects companies in america in the developed world, what does it mean for entities or the economies in emerging markets in africa or asia and how are those laws shaping as you put it. I think its partially impacting them in a descriptive matter and what we see is the Companies Operating in this market to the extent that they are exporting to the European Market. They are adjusting practices, they are adopting eu, some reluctantly but is only way to continue to do trade in europe. The other question is whether its good or bad for the development of the country with this idea and there he took a little bit in the book and it goes both ways. There could be a criticism relating to gmo and that what eu is forcing the african farmers to do is not good for africa. And they would need the gmos to feed the population. There is also Research Showing that allows them to develop a product that allows them to tap into the higher level of the market and be better off financially in the end, for example that you mention on the cocoa beans, now they have an approval with european Safety Standards in many other markets as well because they have shown that the quality of the cocoa bean. In many ways it can also serve the companies and it can also wrve governments for instance that are constrained and they do not have the capacity and mergers that harm big consumers. They do not have the capacity to enact the private regulation for any regulation they keep consumers and citizens safe. So some of them on the effort of the european regulator. With global cartel, that would increase the prices of consumers in africa. I think there is no single answer that would lead the government to embrace or criticize the brussels effect because on industry and the actor in question. Is a question if youre in the second row. Peter from the law school very happy colleague and before you call them the brussels effect, a couple of scholars published another book our new global rulers with International Standard organization and what if its part of the brussels effect it has 27 votes in the International Standard. There some criticism occasionally of the ability to liberate the 27 votes when it needs to getli something done yu have to use it to regulate with a single voice. But at the same time the standardsetting has an interesting interaction with the brussels because if you look at the law of the eu own standard, that you regulation, they can be mortal after International Standard which eu takes onto its regulation and further externalizes advancing not only ease regulatory but a vision of International Organization and at the same time given the 27 votes and that you has experienced, it was quite effective in effecting and influencing the standard set to emerge from those organizations. It is a twoway street, wouldve come across in the research the International Standardsetting and allowing itself to be influenced by those standards that emanate from those institutions. I will go to one question and then come to you next. There was an example in the book of the eu overreaching and mission trading scheme involving airlines. Can you walk through that story and talk about why you came out differently. That was a very fascinating story. We all know that Climate Change is one of the priorities for that year. Well know that multilateral corporation in tackling Climate Change has been limited. So the eu has decided to try to move ahead on its own and partially the brussels effect, this is meeting to its limits and this is the story i engaged within the book, when that you tried to extend the omission trading to aviation and if you are american airlines, flying from new york to london and plane from new york to paris, you would need to buy it for the duration of the entire flight only for small part takes place in the european airspace in the same thing find back to the United States. In this cost a massive backlash by growing governments but also foreign airlines. Who then use a collective power to lobby against it and thought that you. Eu wouldve lost massive, stakes are huge, they found out if you have collective response from the get Business Community that pushes back. They actually needed it to back off and they said it is not Going Forward with the extension to aviation when it applies to noneuropean planes. But its also a story for the brussels effect because with the email and to do is managed to catalyze International Negotiation and when it comes to omission trading in the industry. Because that you had the Bargaining Power of the knowledge that that you would be doing something unilaterally and the other actors do not come to the table. Ethic its interesting that the limits of the brussels effect but also the contention unilateral and way again catalyze international corporation. You have a. Question. Please identify yourself. Hi im from columbia alumni. Wewe talk about how you developd a strong power to be a judgment maker and what percentage of buying power, lets say food purchase, what percentage with the eu be that people are saying we have to tell it to the io. Lastly just on two categories, see u. S. Relationship with the eu in terms of having quality and food to the United States and with the issue of the development of production of the stock market. If you talk about you affecting those two areas. Lets start from the beginning, how did that you develop the capacity and the theory of the brussels effect does not mean that only eu can exercise such power. It is basically a roadmap that explains how a jurisdiction can leave a lo unilaterally. We could see a washington and we could see a bayesian effect but why dont we see this. One that we dont fully appreciate is until 1990 it was the United States the set the global standard. The emanated from here. We were the environmental leader but then they traded places and this is something that the california effect has explained how u. S. Move toward the regulation and seated the stage for the European Union. Why 1990s, the deo not only stops and where they were trading, it was also the moment the eu was very deliberate to building a single market. So io always had goals that made it easier to get the regulation to the protocol process. If you want to regulate the environment, you want to deliver the environment benefit protect environment but you also remove the barriers from trading across the Common Market when we have more harm in our standards. So you can get the party of environmental regulation and then you get thee promarket party with less friction and less trade in the you and you get the left and the right around the regulation because of regulation was integration. Who are skeptical of the free trade. It was easier to build a correlation and a consensus and there are additional reasons that i discussed in the book, some of the issues were not as polarized as the Political Climate in the year. We have the support for instance for the environmental regulation and the left ine the right and the same with Data Protection and same with antitrust so these have not been the same with the u. S. Legislators. And what would it take and how would it need to be with this standard. And you need to have large enough of the consumer market. And you are very proenvironment and want to set the global standard, you cannot do because the company will forgo the trade in costa rica. There is a number i say as long as you have this many consumers you will be able to set the standard. But that you has going for it to wealthy consumer market. But the gdp per capita is going to be for a long time behind the ieu. U. S. Is more, duty per capita is higher but theres more people in the io. There is a magic number and if you think about in the agriculture eu is not a major market for the American Farmers but yet we have seen the recent version to scare them away from gmos. As long as you have a long supply chain and want to make sure that everybody is not trading within the eu, that is harder to find. I am Cynthia Roberts i teach in the International Security program in columbia so my question is out of left field but i cannot resist coming i teach European Security this semester and i cannot talk about howng eu rules the world. Theres two other beside food and i want to get your feedback, one both are areas where the u. S. Is dominant. I wonder if there is any effects that we can learn for your work on regulatory. That of course is the financial world which is by far the dominant player, we close European Countries out of the u. S. Financial system for violating regulations with terrorist or what have you and banks pay penalties that we close countries out of u. S. Financial system out of sanctions. This has hurt that you recently in the way that they tried to come back with a financial instrument to combat this successfully. One question rises from the experience whether the wolf fix the euro problem and will see a brussels effect there. The second is area of specific undefined sector and thereto we see more inefficiency than efficiency with the European Market has more helicopters being sold then there are countries to buy them. Everything is inefficient and defense in europe. It makes the u. S. Look quite efficient and we have our own problems. One answer you might give thats because the europeans dont like to spend money, we know that well but is still much worse than you would predict. Why is there not efficient regulation and theres some effort to move in that direction but it is still not there. If you can give your thoughts on those two i would be very grateful. Great. The two areas that you identified when we talk about the Financial Markets in the architecture and national security. That is where the power has not been fully transferred. That is where they are still primarily in charge. It has not been coupled with the levels of common fiscal policy and political integration that we would be able to complete the building of the architecture. Thats why i think the your prices have taught europe that its a very uncomfortable place inin this alignment when you hae a p Monetary Policy and the deo has tried to move to that direction so we have massive reforms underway. It is hard for me too speculate whether that you will ultimately get there but i think it is the harder road. The other one you mentioned with financial sanctions and eu will not have the kind of power that the u. S. Has when it comes to using financial sanctions. The brussels effect does not try to claim that the brussels effect will solve all the issues. It will have a certain set of issues that it cannot do the others. It means in the other areas thats where the eu would need to use a Political Capital and o forth. And theres another interesting issue, there is no common european army. Youre absolutely right, there has not been thehe willingness o make those investments, eu has not wanted to be a superpower. The question in the definition of power of whether youou wind p in the a blood rate your enemy, eu will not win that game and they were not born to win the game. The last certainty on whether the u. S. Could be best to support the eu the more assertive russia so there has been a conversation that that you needs to do something about this. We may actually see with brexit because the uk has been quite reluctant to pursue european focusing on nato where they are partially letting membership. Whether we already have more investment of the European Defense fund and other initiative and you are familiar with im sure, they show the ceo is testing those quarters and trying to see whether they will get there. The politics gets more complicated. I will step in with a question. I will read it. Which is brexit. There is one writer who beat me too it when you talk about the power of brussels and thats Boris Johnson as a journalist actually sometimes making up fake stories about crazy eu regulations and try to rile up roots against you. Now he is Prime Minister so hes managed to pull the country out of the eu and you have some thoughts about whether he will succeed in giving the distance in the eu that he seeks. This is something that i take on in the book, its one of the main reasons to write the book, that you was in the midst of the dip Massive Development that would weaken that you and the brussels effect. But they claim that i make a point that brexit does not mean brexit. There is no wha such side this s waiting on the other side of brexit for regulatory freedom. They will not regulate further government reach. Why is that. About 45 of the uk trade depends on access to the eu market. That is not going to change, if you think about many of the nature industries in the uk, eu is the number one destination for airspace, automobiles, to limitintelecommunication, and te access to eu markets they need to abide by the rules. So the question is if they would want to have a separate production line for the uk car market which is six times smaller than that you car market, and they already make the cars that are consistent with the eu regulation. Thats what i feel Boris Johnson is one of the false promises of the brexit campaign. To say thates that you and also that they pressed sorts of regulatory alignment. They have asked to stay close to the regulation because that serves their interest. And even uk government, you look at the comments of the information commissioner and said brexit really doesnt mean brexit when it comes to data privacy. Because three quarters of the dataflow and uk Company Start with the eu country. Its very hard to track your owt path that goes against the fundamental of how Global Markets work. Im going to take one there and then well see where we go next. I am Patrick Steiner and i work for the new york fed intermec columbia grad. Im interested in innovation and how you think about that. Make you regulation takes a long time, its slow and responsive and if you want to innovated economy some of the choices the u. S. Has made not to regulate things for example gsm in the Telecom Space where you had a standard in the u. S. Did not. Im interested how you think about allowing integration and promoting it in regulations can get in the way of that. It is a great timely question and if you look up brussels asking for more regulation. Like the other u. S. Tech companies, eu unveiled its white paper on the regulation of the a. I. And the Tech Companies are saying they will come back. It is somewhat unclear with the regulation is and always against economic whether against innovation. I think you should give us some pause that that you is behind when it comes to the big Tech Companies that rely on innovation. Eu would definitely have work to be done. But when you think about the regulation necessary hindering innovation, i think that is not clear. So some of the Tech Companies say we do not want to be unrea unregulated, we need consumers to trust our product and we need to have gravitation that builds on it seriously. And have a privacy as part of a Business Strategy and how they profile themselves. If you think i want to fight this bowl on how america give up on free market, its called great reserve. It shows a lot of the research and how European Markets are more competitive than american markets person because they markets have become so concentrated because of the lack of antitrust regulation in the u. S. Market. What we see as massive profits but also gross an growth in conr pricing. If you think about Energy Efficiency where you hold the company to higher standard intensive Energy Efficiency, that does not mean that they dont innovate toward their products, that would allow the them im going to followup thou not with the repressuring principle that that you uses to decide whether something isth safe. It is different from a costbenefit analysis that you use from american regulators and americans would say it is not wellfounded because there is no necessarily safe level that we can be certain of. Can you talk about the pros and cons. If there is fundamental theosophical distinction in the way that you place your faith is in society. And how much safety have an markets ability to selfcorrect. There is a regulators ability to getting to write. In europe there is much small fear that the regulators dont stop and when they should in the market s is against it. Where in the u. S. They have much more of a presumption that we ever trust the markets as we trust the government. In a sense it gives the regulators the right to go ahead even in the absence of certainty of some materializing. Youre certain that some chemical harms consumers and the europeans can damage, when there is not significant evidence to gives them the rise to a notion that there mayay be harm. In the u. S. Book the line differently, this is actually the commissioner for competition who is going to the Digital Economy and you in the principal today with Artificial Intelligence saying theres many risks even though theres opportunities with the technology and it comes to your question on innovation, we could be hindering innovation if we are radical in regulating but there are also unintended unexplored consequences that it starkly we dont know how the technology affect individuals and shape the society and we may ban them temporarily before we learn about the consequence. Im going to go here and then a couple more after this. I am a journalist, i would like to bring up a brussels effect that everyone is familiar with and operates the browser. Which is the insincere consent notices or notice on every webpage to consent to terms that when you agree in many cases you end up violating the gdp because your providing consent to be tracked after all. I like to get your sense on that and theyre doing what the eu wanted it to do. Gdp was a monumental shift globally in the regulation of privacy, it was something for instance u. S. Government andt u. S. Companies but the noted revelation, the Global Politics move towards the eu that gave its position much more credibility to say that we do need to care about ourak privacy in set our standards for the corporations and what are the cost when your privacy is compromised. It is one of those and whether the io actually had a right, i think it remains to be seen how the enforcement unfolds, there certain concerns that i have for instance when it, to the impact, its much easier for the Big Companies to comply and its much harder for small players to do so, that is certainly not what that you intended and it would be against the ears idea for the lovin leveling of plain. There may need to be rethinking on the index of the regulation but i think when it comes to the evolution of our views on privacy, i think those very few who say the you is not getting it right or not doing it for the right reasons whether the regulator needs to be revised to still make sure that we do not have extensive regulation we do not have unintended consequences, are you willing to admit that that is likely and some of the criticism but the foundational idea that that you was there setting thehe Gold Standard that makeset us rethink the value of individual and we now have over 100 countries that heavily did the gdpr, facebook and the others actually calling for the u. S. Federal government between active gdp regulation. There clearly is Political Support towards regulating gdp in the eu pocket. More questions, you had one didnt you . No, this gentleman behind me. Identify yourself please. I am Columbia Law School formerly. I was curious when you mentioned the precautionary standards, it seems pharmaceuticals are mad mt be going the other way that the fda has been conservative about pharmaceuticals getting onto the market, my impression is that europe is the reverse, am i wrong on that. The criteria for the brussels effect that that you would be the most tru stringent regulator, im certainly in many examples of certain mitigation and the fda may be more stringent and there are examples of food safety as well that that you is the not the most stringent gambling and whether the eu is the most transit in the food safety when it comes to past raising Dairy Products the u. S. Is most stringent when it comes to regulating tobacco. The u. S. Is most stringent. The claim is not that the eu always prevails because its the most stringent because theres examples where it is not doing so, those are still minority to look at the overall expense of the two regulate which is that the eu and pharmaceuticals you could actually market in a lot of different ways, its easy to produce pills for one market in a different set of pills for another so in that instance you would not necessarily have either side nominating in that way. There some examples are discussed in the book for instance, the Japanese Company that failed to get the approval for the truck and eu, one thing that they did, they did not elevate the truck production standard of the eu but they ended up pulling out of the market that they still served in the u. S. Market that is not a stringent when it comes to the drug, that can sometimes happen because how big of the market in the brussels effect takes place in is also stringent and the companies have the incentive to work the standards are not a beaver that you market. I have a question that i was saving towards the end in were getting towards the end, we will go till 8 00 oclock, your chapter nine, what comes next. Uk is out of that you, this ties back where we were before, yes really interesting observations about how that you you can continue to have a lot of influence even if it were shrunk and even if there was internal battles over like monetary and fiscal policy, the t regulatoryo keep surging forward. It is always a somewhat uncomfortable position to speculate and critic what the world will look like, but it do offer some thoughts to look at where the world is going and the prediction i make in the book is that that you Regulatory Power will outlive to some extent or prolong the economic that would be based on instability to grow and have a market size. The reason for following, if you think about one obvious question, this is where the data started the china is rising and if you look at no matter what statistics the relative market size of the will decline, the emerging markets will take over in many ways. It would suggest that most likely brussels effect will shrink because theres opportunities to forgo the European Market and trade but i figure its going to be a wild before that happens, first of all why when the beijing effect replace the brussels effect anytime soon. Overall gdp is not as good of a predictor of the countrys ability to regulate than the gdp per capita. So you need to have wealthy enough consumers to have the demand for regulation that exist and that you and that will take a long while before china gets there. By the time china gets there, most likely the overall growth in the overall gdp is not at the level where the government would be as willing to in the regulation that may slow the growth. Also china growth relies on export and import that are setting the standard like the eu is setting. I think it will be a while before that will happen. China also does not have the regulatoryeg architecture in the Legal Institution that allow it to convert its regulatory market size into actual regulatory influence and to the extent to the legislation. It is important and to some extent on data as e well. On environmental law, what we may see one day with the beijing effect that is exporting the regulation. That is one argument on the external and the importance of china will expert on the economy but i think the eu has more of a runway then p focus on gdp growth. I also talk a little bit about the wall of technology and because if you think about the concept that we started from the nondivisibility into the extent that companies could divide the production and produce more cheaply products of a different market, it would allow them to restrict the impact of the regulation in the market. We have some Technology Like 3d printing and any fracturing that may be possible potential in the future to localize the production. In the scale on the economy and the uniform production. That could potentially compromise the brussels effect because theres no need to standardize to the same extent. These technologies are somet extent and hard to predict how quickly they would be deployed t at the scale that we will see a transformation of a large number of industries. Those are some off the examples that i think we will see the brussels effect continue even if you think about the internal threats that theres obviously a lot of conversations internally that are shaped by the rise of the antiyou parties so they may be a real threat that comes within the you and if they starting to rain and the power that they are willing to delegate with the regulation. And if you think about the sentiment and the various parties in poland and in hungry, theyre not worried about gdp or environmental protection, theyre not worried about that you going after the big u. S. Companies and Technology Sector using antitrust laws, theyre worried about migration, contr control, control over the free press and this is not the core of the single market, there could be a Ripple Effect if you start having the countrys vote against anything that comes from brussels but these are not the battles that they are taking on. I think that is an interesting point, not intuitively and want to spell it out it makes a lot of sense. We will take a few more questions, i think you in the back row has some and identify yourself. Angela thank you this is really interesting. I have a lot o three questions. Following innovation, what do you think the brussels effect if you can, and the 5g and Global Technologies and secondly, as the markets in china grow you think that will influence the content of the rules that that you will make in regards to the differences of human rights. I think the most contentious talk it that they interrelated and that you worries of the sovereignty and the big debate if its divided of who will unveil the 5g network and how should we approach the influence in our economies. I dont think theres one way that the governments think about it and there is a concern of how china is really investing in the development of a. I. In the eu has a need to restrain some of the efforts and i think that is the one im working, we ceu moving to that with a monumental day that you unveiled the paper on the regulation of a. I. And facial recognition technique in its recently passed with china and mine. So we will see how you will move into the space but i think that you is aware that it has potential ability to shape the technology through the regulation. Partially i think an interesting question that eu shares interest of the United States and thats an area that is entrenched in both markets on how we regulate and there could be an opportunity for the u. S. And the eu for some of the standards. Will take a question right there. Right in front of you. Hi i am ellie, im a journalist, my question is about exit because i was born in the uk so i have particular interest in that, this might be an obvious answer but when you say that you make the 45 of the uk in the market, what was the point of brexit . It is a very good question. And its one of those that i think i regret how the campaign was thought and how much misinformation and false promises were given to people and how when you announce something that is so complicat complicated, it is very risky to handed over to people and even though you can lay the basic arguments very simple, if you think about how your trade depends on access to the market it is not hard to understand that you do need to abide by the standards and you will need to can do to do it after brexit but somehow that did not translate. There was still an idea that there was a Better Future rwaiting on the other side of brexit. But i think briggs is much easier to deliver than as a policy. And that is what the uk will learn the hard way. The hard thing is the abrupt departure is very difficult to unfold so the uk now is one year extension and this is set by Boris Johnson he says i dont want extensions, we will be out in the extension. Will not go beyond that, the difficulties in all we have managed to do is for the uk to leave, there is a relationship is up for negotiation. Now we have a year to reach the trade agreement that shapes the future Economic Partnership with the uk in the eu and it took about seven years to negotiate to canada which is the easiest thing to do inhi the world and w we have tried to fasttrack this and get it done in a year and theres an absolute deadline and we need to get itin done. Otherwise it will be very ugly, it needs to take a priority. If you think inif the uk for Global Britain is negotiated with the u. S. And negotiating with various other trade partners, that you needs to get a deadline and get it done by the end of the year. I would like to say good luck because i think its very difficult and what my prediction is that we end up with something that is not even in the new interest not to have a deal at the end of that but it needs to be something rather basic which means we need to continue to build on that. So brexit is far from over in many ways its just the beginning that were trying to understand with what the implications are and how do we come up with the rule that will somehow be returning in the partnership Going Forward. There is one more question and theres one here. Good evening i am from portugal studying at cvs and ba and on the china versus eu topic where you were mentioning that you would prevail as an influencing force versus china and there is one topic where i dont think i agree with you which is energy and Renewable Energy. Europe has had a very positive impact but china with all the volume has been a Real Driving Force to reduce the cost of renewable especially when turbines and more recently with solar panels. What is your take on that because in the Renewable Energy and to have a real impact on Climate Change, you have to have volume in the loss a big size and euro plaques and that in the last 20 or 30 years has not been able to lead that revolution. Eu would welcome that, to partners when it comes to fighting Climate Change in the more china is able to pursue development that leads the energy that produces to be more efficient, and serves the same goal, eu will not fight a goal of solving the Climate Change on its own, this is probably going to be one of the most welcome chinese policy professions. O eye. So there is a question of competitiveness and maybe it is the Chinese Companies get a bigger market share when it comes to these companies but when you think about the driving factor and motivator that is something i think they will be celebrating. Any last questions okay we will stay on right here. My name is joyce, and im a digital activist. We have a paper called the fourd intranets, and 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 top down, and then indiana, which who knows how it was going to go, it was a question still open. So, my question for you, looking at the paper and many of the things that have happened in the years, it seems the eu this is a moment in time. If it could get over kind of the inferiority complex that it has it could really take the lead and create a way to go forward with the things we want for this technology and all of the things tono work for the global societ. Im just wondering if you think the eu has that kind. On the inferiority complex next week i will be meeting with a lot of people to try to convince them of the power that they have if they hadnt internally formalized. Its interesting in my early conversations with one of the questions, i explained how this affects emanated from the goal to build the market. It wasnt to set the global standard. It was almost like an accidental byproduct. Not so much anymore. You see a shift in the last ten years, where the eu actually understands that it has the opportunity to shape the global regulatory landscape, and it does care about this outcome. If you think about the issues like data privacy when the eu cares about the people, the idea that something could be in theea information would require the platforms to erase the information that is inaccurate or no longer relevant. It may not be enough to have it erased in one jurisdiction only, and the eu has been playing with the idea to extend globally. So to seize the opportunity and shape the global standard setting in an area that the eq deeply cares about. There is a difference and the eu has the belief that it is this kind of digital requirement to balance come advocated by the United States, [inaudible] advanced by the chinese. I want to thank the audience and professor bradford. [applause] and i will add my thanks and gratitude to the Richmond Center for their good work. Thank you all very much. [applause] next, George Mason University professor colin dueck talks about the strengths and weaknesses of president trumps Foreign Policy and the role of conservative nationalism in the u. S. Foreign policy. Its the subject of his book, age of iron. Im ashley tellis, senior fellow at the endowment and its a great pleasure for me to welcome all of you to the discussion of colin dueck age of iron