Is. It is to propose in preparing for future conflicts we should not be preoccupied with fighting the last one, which brings me, finally, to the real risks that the eu proposes to security which is obviously closely tied to American Security. The two issues that are fuelling are fairly simple ones, that we understand pretty well on this side of the pond, Economic Security and immigration. While are predicting Economic Disaster for Great Britain, the reality is that while there will certainly be repercussions, the only certain disaster would be remaining in the eu, which is turning out to be nothing more or less than an economic suicide packed for its members. If the United States can salvage one independent strong economic partner from the eu, we might consider that an opportunity rather than a calamity. And then there is immigration, the eu has been an active component that has been enabled from the middle east that have resulted in a significant radical islam problem on the continent. Member nations who have recognized this issue and elected conservative governments pledging to counter such as poland, have been vilified. But the fact of the matter is that this is a significant problem, probably the most significant Security Threat that europe currently faces. And given the eus policies, individual countries have an obligation to their citizens to confront it. The United States is certainly benefited from collective european institutions such as nato. But the purpose of nato was never to dissolve the individual nations states into one but rather to provide them a venue for communication and cooperation. Moving forward, therefore, that might be the more productive model for the eu as in its current in carnation i believe it poses greater risks than it promises security and i dont blame the british friends for having strong thoughts so i await the out come for the june 23rd vote with great interest, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you victoria. Our next speaker will be dr. Ted broman. He studies under an glow american relations, u. S. And british relations with European Union, the world and International Organizations as treaties as Senior Research fellow here in the Heritage Foundation center for freedom. He joined heritage in 2008 previously served nine years as associate director of Yale Universitys International Security studies a center dedicated to the study and teaching of diplomatic history and grand strategy. He was lecturer in history and from 2004 an International Affairs for massive arts program. Numerous u. S. And international publications. He received his doctorate in history in 1999 from yale. His thesis on britains first application to the European Economic community which is very relevant to the discussion were having today. The dissertation price from the american Political Science associations british politics group. He also holds two masters degrees in history from yale as well as a bachelor of arts degree from iowas college. Okay. Thank you very much. Luke. Its a pleasure to be here to talk for once about the subject of my dissertation research, which this is a thing to do and ive waited 25 things to do. Our history is relevant. Go by your copies now where theyre available. No. Im not going to talk about my dissertation. What is it im going to do is provide historical overview of american policy towards europe, talk a little bit about particularly the cold war era and a way that the eu for a while, they the predecessor, really, the community that theyre referring to. The eec as it use to be called the way those were for a while, part but only part of the cold war strategy. What happened at the end of the cold war and how the train ran off the tracks. So let me just start off by saying that since the end of world war ii, u. S. Policy towards europe has drifted, really without a lot of deliberate thought very far from its original premises in the late 1940s. That drift really accelerated at the end of the cold war. At the same time, europe itself is changed out of all recognition and its my contention today that if we want to get back to proper policies we need to understand some history, understand u. S. Policy in the 40s, 50s and 60s and try to get back to u. S. Policy that seeks to secure the goal that by and large we really did achieve successfully in europe during those years. Let me start after world war ii. After 1945 it was widely expected in the United States and in europe that u. S. Forces were not going to remain in europe for a very long after victory over nazi germany, was it going to be a matter of months or year or two, u. S. Was going to go home. It soon became obvious as the cold war began to kick off, that the permanent or semipermanent u. S. Security role in europe was going to have to be undertaken. And that leads fairly rapidly to the creation of nato alliance. At the same time or almost at the same time, the u. S. Realizes that the european state and really here we mean western europe peian states were far weaker, far socially weaker, politically weaker and economically weaker after world war ii than the u. S. Had expected. It turned out that they couldnt stand on their own right away, that if we left immediately, the whole place was doing to fall apart. This leads rapidly, again, to the advancement of u. S. Reconstruction efforts in primarily western europe, really epitomized in the Marshall Plan. Both the Marshall Plan and nato have sort of the same fundamental goal. Of course theres concern about an actual soviet invasion of western europe, what is really more significant is the american diagnosis that the europeans have lost confidence, the real threat, in other words, is not soviet invasion, its an internal pure peian collapse, that might come as a result of concerns about security the, the need to nato but also going to prop up the europeans and give them self confidence and Economic Economic social and. All of this stems from very thoughtful american diagnosis of the causes of the Great Depression, the causes of the rise of the nazis and the causes therefore of world war ii and the american concern is dont let European Economics and security go down the drain because when they go down the drain, you get european political radicalism and then bad things happen and ultimately the American Army has to get involved. Thats a reasonable and i think correct diagnosis. So what are the american remedies, how do you stop this from happening, again. Well in the best sense of the word, american remedies are very liberal, free trade, one of the one of the american diagnosis your nations are too walled up economically you need to trade more with each other, youll be more prosperous that way and it will be good for you politically too. What we now call the world bag begins as reconstruction shortterm Reconstruction Program in europe. Theres debt forgiveness, particularly at germany on a very large scale. There is the International Monetary fund which is short term currency collapses the u. S. Places enormous emphasis on journal regionalism and making germany a federal state to try to reduce the centralizing power of ber lean and to make germany a little bit like the United States, with strong states, strong republics inside germany. And, of course, theres strong u. S. Emphasis on Multi Lateralism. This is multilaterals on the political level and on the security level. All of these things are intended to rebuild the european state same to refortify, to restrengthen france, britain, germany in a federal structure, italy, and the other sort of smaller states within europe. This is not a program of wiping out the nation states of europe, its a program of rebuilding the nation states of europe. By and large this program is extremely successful, nato works. European confidences fortify, Marshall Plan and other u. S. Efforts are successful. European do recover. Theyre not invaded by the soviets and theyre not over taken by domestic radicalism from the far right to the far left. Now, one other part of this american agenda is the support for emerging ideas about european integration centered on the Steel Community in the 1950s. The community is initially a french idea and the idea really is to restrain germany to tie it in to the institutions before it gets too powerful. The u. S. Backs the Steel Community and the predecessor of todays eu but part of this much Larger Program of basically lower case l, liberal Multi Lateral nation state fortifying successful policies. So fast forward to 1989, 1991, we get through the end of the cold war and the u. S. Decides that, hey, what we want to do after 1945 we can now do, right, we can start reducing our exposure to europe. We cant maybe not bring everyone home, we can start bringing people home, look, weve won the cold war in europe. What does this lead the United States to do, it leads the United States to begin to out source most of its policies towards the to the European Union. The union becomes the vehicle for many, although not all american policies in europe, because as we decrease our interest in europe, as we decide we can pivot, to coin a phrase, to asia or the middle east, the European Union becomes our interlock, our representative as it were in europe. Now, at the same time the European Union decides it can step on the gas pedal. During the cold war, the union doesnt get very far down the road of integration because you need those strong nation states if youre going to keep peoples loyalty during the cold war and actually win the cold war. Germans might fight for germany, italians might fight for italy, the french will fight for france, brit will fight for britain, but theyre not going to fight for europe. Some of you may know what Winston Church hill called the idea of European Army in 1953 in a letter to president eisenhower, he called it is slugymalgan. Theyll fight for their nation. If we want a nato force it has to be a sere ri of national forces, not some pretend european force. Well, after the cold war is over, all of these cold war imperatives seem to disappear. So the eu begins to step on the gas pedal and integration goes faster and faster and deeper and deeper precisely the moment where the u. S. Is out sourcing more of its european policies to the European Union. When this process begins to create instability, the euro, for example, or the large scale of immigration and migration into europe, the eus answer is very simple, more europe. What do we need when the euro causes problems, we need much higher level of financial tax integration into brussels, what happens when immigration, migration becomes a problem. The European Union needs to take full control of everyones borders to solve this problem. The answer is always more and more europe. Weve now reached a point where this process has become both self perpetuating and self destroying. The more europe demands to solve problems that it can, in fact, solve, the more problems it creates and the more problems it creates the more demands, even more power to solve the problems that it has already failed to address in the past. In the cards of all of this, we in the United States have lost sight of our goals and our policies in europe. What are those goals what are our policies, i dont think theyve changed sints 1945. We still have the same basic interests in europe. What are those interests in above all, they are peace, right. We want the european continent to be useful. Our instrument for that has always been nato. Since the late 1940s, the American Security instrument to assure peace in europe both the defendant against exterm threats and to sure up europe pliticily internally has been the alliance. The eu is not a question to the question. Goal of peace. Secondly, as a contribution to peace and also its a good thing, we want pros sparety. This stems, again, from the american diagnosis that the Great Depression was the cause of the nazis who were the cause of world war ii. Where are we in europe now. Were now backing the euro, which is bad economics. Bad economics, thelessen we learned in world war ii, bad economics dont make good politics. Bad economics make bad politics. What are we backing in europe now. We are backing a currency which can only be maintained by creating extremely high levels of unemployment and extremely low levels of Economic Activity in most of the mediterranean countries. We are deliberately adopting a, we need a bad economic strategy. Are we following the lessons that we learned in the Great Depression and world war ii. No, were not. Were adopting exactly the opposite lesson. Were delivering empowering bad economics. You know what, were getting bad politics as a result, not a surprise. Our interest in europe, of course, is democracy. I will echo everything that victoria said. The eu is hostile to National Level politics and to National Level politicians. It intrudes extremely deeply into all of europes nation states. It generates hostility, in some ways that i find completely understandable, and other ways that i find less desirable. Above all, the European Union is not the answer problem of european democracy in part because it is super national, in part because it dislikes nation states. But ultimately because if you look around europe today and you believe that some european Political Trends are concerning, hey, ive got news for you, all of those trends took route when the European Union was in existence. If the European Union is the cure for political extremism, how come the yuan job had advanced further and further people have become more and more concerned about the state of european politics. I will submit that the answer here is not more eu, the answer here is less eu because weve had more eu, weve had more problems. My view is if continue to base unthinking support for the European Union and i think most american support for the eu is unthinking and pardon me, ignorant. It will continue to see more economic strains, which are inherent in the euro. It will continue to see rising liberalism and it will continue to see a weaker european u. S. Trance atlantic link in the bargain because it will all of these developments will under mine nato. I dont think any of these things are in the interests of the nations of europe. I dont think theyre in the interest of the United States either. I think the true interest of the United States are to return to the ideas, the american ideas that helped save western europe after 1945 and then saved Eastern Europe after 1989 which are the ideas of Economic Freedom, Multi Lateral cooperation for security and pros parity and support for a Democratic National government, that was the basis of the american strategy in europe after 1945 and it worked. And you know what, it can work again today if we have the courage and it doesnt take very much courage to return to things that it worked successfully in the past and not continue to go down the foolish road that weve increasingly followed since the end of cold war. Thank you. [ applause ] hes a leading expert on the u. S. , uk special relationship and u. S. Policy towards europe. Gardner has testified before congress on several occasions and has advised the executive branch on a range of issues relating to u. S. Foreign policy in the trance atlantic alliance. Before joining heritage, gardner served as an aid to former british Prime Minister and advise her on number of International Policy issues. Working in her private office, gardner assisted Lady Thatcher with her final book, state craft, strategies for a changing world. Gardner received as doctorate two masters degree from Yale University and bachelors and masters degree in modern history from oxford university. After the remarks, we will have time for some questions you might want to start thinking about them now. Thank you and over to you. Thanks very much, luke and thank you to tad and victoria two excellent presentations and thank everybody for joining us today. My view are very clear. I believe firmly that the Great Britain is better off outside of the European Union and its not any good for britain, but its also good for europe frankly and also for america and for the special relationship and ill be outlining my remarks why i believe that is the case. And also ill talk a bit about Margaret Thatchers views on it just to set the record straight. I would like to think of titanic on a glide path towards massive iceberg and the british people on june 23rd have an opportunity to jump on to a lifeboat and i think that many british people will choose to get on to that lifeboat and the latest polls in the uk, theres a poll published yesterday, which shows that the braxton camp now has a slight lead over the remain site and i think that what you are seeing in britain, the mode, is project fear, the project launched by the British Government in favor, britain staying inside the European Union beginning to sink. I think the british public, you know, im thinking very carefully about the future in europe and all of this sort of scare thats being projected by downing street and by the European Commission and by host Multi National institutions, et cetera, all of this, i think is being, you know, largely reject bid the british opinion polls are bearing that out. And i think the, you know, the message being projected by downing street is like a sort of episode of, you know, the walking dead. If britain leave it is e, britain is going to face the apock lips and everyone is going to be forced to eat each other and thats the sort of the level of the arguments being put forward by the remaining camp. I think its absolutely stagger, this belief, you know, that britain has mentioned earlier, the world east fifth largest economy, one of the biggest on the face of the earth. The britain cannot survive and function outside of the European Union. I think its frankly ludicrous and its my view that, you know, britain, a nation that has been a global path centers will not only survive outside of the European Union, its going to drive outside of the European Union. And the eu at the moment, i think, really ties britain down. It shafls britain shackles britain to what is increasingly declining entity that seeks to Self Determination and sovereignty. And Self Determination really do matter in this world today and without a doubt. That the british people have to enjoy, at this time. Pan american parliament. And central bank of the america, a pan America Court of justice in mexico city, a man American Army headquartered in brasilia. And most americans, im sure, will reject the idea that relinquish and control its own borders or have the courts overruled by foreign judges. This is exactly the scenario that is being faced not only the british people, but by people across europe and if indeed, britain does vote, the british people vote to leave the eu on june 23rd, im sure that will just been the tip of the iceberg in terms of those in europe who will follow suit and i would expect to see a wave of ref ren da across many European Countries in the coming years and i will expect to see some others following britain leaving the eu. Without a doubt, i think the eu imposes a significant economic burden on Great Britain and as the former mayor of London Johnson noted in a piece of telegraph a couple of days ago. Eu legislation 600 Million Pounds a week. Eu laws regulation seep in every aspect of british life. Frankly Great Britain is no longer a truly sovereign nation. Open europe has calculated the 100 most expensive eu regulations costs the uk 33 pounds, on a host of british institutions have put out figures with regard to the tremendous burden and cost of eu regulation. Only 6 of British Companies trade with the eu, yet 100 of them have to koom ply with eu law and regulation. And there is, i think, a sharp contrast between the large number of British Business leaders, especially business of small leader who is come out in contrast to the vast array of Multi Nationals investment banks, golden sacks, for example. Campaigning for britain to stay inside of the European Union. I think there is a disconnect here between the british grass roots and sort of International Political elite who are warning the british people about their own future, if they dare step outside of the European Union. But we should be, i think, that the eu is an economic decline since 2008. U. S. Gdp has increased by 13 . Eugdp has increased by 33 . The eu is a graveyard of low growth, the only cost of low growth is currently antarctica. Thats not exactly a record to be proud of. At the same time, britain is not in a position to control its own borders and in 2015, 270,000 people immigrated to the uk from the eu, thats 184,000 of net migration. Thats the same size of the city such as oxford. Thats a staggering level of embrace into the uk and i think the british people are opposed to the idea that they have no say over levels from europe and theres a fundamental lack of democratic consent here with regard to immigration. I believe strongly that the United States, as victoria mentioned earlier, stands to benefit from and britain, that is, free, britain that is sovereign, a britain that can make its own decision on the inside of the stage will be a far stronger ally partner for the United States and a president obama, as victoria mentioned, was absolutely wrong to intervene in the british debate. I will describe president obamas intervention as as a slap in the face, he comes on to the International Stage and tells them if they dare leave the union they will be at the back of the coup for a freetrade deal. Also speaking in a condescending tone. And needless to say, i think this backfired. The podium definitely supports that and i think most british people rejected the idea that president obama should be lecturing on how they should be voting in their own referendum. And im in no doubt as has the britain will be at the front of the coup of u. S. Free trade deal post brax. If you look at the tremendous, you know, depth and size of the u. S. , uk financial relationship. Its the largest bilateral investment relationship in the world of the United States is more the 5 trillion in assets in the United Kingdom. Thats a staggering figure represents 22 of total u. S. Comp rat assets abroad. Theres a huge amount at stake here in terms of both the u. S. And british. You know, to what he has, Free Trade Agreements with 20 countries across the world. He even has fda with brocken. And one would have thought that Free Trade Agreement signed with Great Britain would be as the americans like to say, a no brainer and i think that, you know, the next president of the United States regardless of who that may be is highly likely to support a free trade deal with americas closest friend on the International Stage and i think it will be tremendous, mo tent tremendous on capitol hill as well. No doubt the relationship will be strengthened. And the European Union with its attempts to create european super state, has been damaging in many respects to the special relationship and to the bilateral relationship between the United States and Great Britain. And we should be under no illusions that the eu or the European Commission is attempting to create a European Union army as a competitor to nato and the times of london have an excellent expo save of this last week talking about secret eu plans, which will only be revealed, of course, after the referendum. I think the plans are going to be partly announced around june 24th, i believe. I do recommend that anyone who is interested in looking into eu plans to build a European Union army as a competitor to nato and it is nato. And the broader lights that guarantees european security. It does not of European Union army. He is, though, afraid of American Power in europe, he is afraid of nato power. And i believe that nato will be significantly strengthened if britain is outside of the European Union. And without a doubt, the United States needs to reassess the entire approach towards europe as britain mentioned. Has many decades back to the yourian project this idea of ever closer union in europe. This is a 1950s or 1960s mindset, very out dated, and the United States decent support, Economic Freedom in europe, Self Determination, sovereignty, all of the things that the American People cherish and hold dear in their hearts wharks is good for america is good for europe as well. This is certainly the view of my former boss, and i would like to set the record straight that has been a number of, i will say, articles suggesting that Margaret Thatcher would be opposed to it today. I can say that, you know, based on my own conversations of many, many years that were alive today, she will be fighting tooth and nail british sovereignty and supporting british exit from the European Union and she first wrote about this, actually in her 2002 book and always years ahead of the curve on this issue. I would like to conclude with a quote by Margaret Thatcher, which i think perfectly encapsulates the failure of the european project and why the british people need to reassert their sovereignty and to quote Lady Thatcher, thats such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a super state, most ever embarked upon will see to be perhaps the greatest folly. Thank you. Thank you now for the remarks. We have some time for questions. We have some microphones out, if you can raise your hand. If i call on you please identify yourself and any Organization Affiliation that will be great and wait for the microphone. Ill go here to the gentleman in front, first. As you like. Im charles, the center of principles and politics in intern. I have a question for dr. Gardner. Why is the current government for the uk staying in the European Unit and how did they get so off track in the original, you know, thats the . To put it politely. Excellent question. I should point out that David Cameron was interviewed soon after Lady Thatcher passed away. He was asked, noo, hes not one, actually. He doesnt see himself as someone in the thatcher realm. He represents a very different vision to that of Margaret Thatcher. Several are of course campaigning and youll also have significant number of it as well, among the particle men tri party, roughly half of conservatives indicate they support of conservative party member shows about twothirds or maybe 70 of conservative party member support. I would argue that hes fundamentally out of touch with most of his own party. Whatever the out come of the referendum, i would expect that the next Prime Minister, certainly the next leader of the conservative party and by default, actually, that person will become the Prime Minister David Cameron has stepped down before the 2020 election. The next leader of the party will, i think, undoubtedly be a supporter because that is the mood of the party and its very hard to see someone taking the reigns of the conservative party who believes in britain staying in the European Union because such a candidate, i dont think would be actually voted for by the grass roots of the party, but certainly the conservative Party Remains very divided over this you have David Cameron basically uniting with the left, siding with the bailor party, siding with brussels, siding with president obama. Siding with, you know, every International Entity on the face of the earth and saying, a raid against him is very large chunk of the british people and i think that the common sense the british people will prevail on june 23rd, sending a very clear message to mr. Cameron. For the last ten years i was president for the business council. I think its excellent and after dealing with the eu for a decade, i understand some of what youre saying. Its very difficult to get trance atlantic cooperation with commercial issues. Now, my question is, if the uk leaves the eu, will the Scottish Nationalist Party have a reason to stay in the eu and have another referendum which will divide, again, the uk. Actually if i may comment quickly on that one, even though im the moderator. I think its important to note that the scottish nationalist published a political mann fest ahead of their elections this year. They had local elections in scott lant. And in this there was no commitment. No pledge to have another referendum and, of course, the idea of another independence referendum. The idea of the European Union referendum was wellknown, right. So if they wanted to go down this road, they could have sucked this in Third Party Election and then they would have had a mandate from the people to have a referendum in the event of of it. They chose not to go down this road. This is, in my opinion, part of the project fear that if the british people collectively vote to leave the eu, all of a sudden, the national the nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will want to leave and join the eu. I think its just smoke and mirrors. Yeah, just very briefly, thats thats a good question. If the they decided to leave the United Kingdom, then they would have to, of course, you know apply to join the European Union. Theyll also have to apply to join nato if they wish to join nato. The spanish have indicated very clearly on both counts they would veto scottish applications. The scotts would be, you know, on a completely out of, you know, out of the eu and nato if they decided to vote to leave the United Kingdom. And very good point, i think, about 90 of the polls wish to remain part of the European Union and your skepticism is far more powerful in england than it is in scotland. But i think that, you know, for the scotts that a departure from the United Kingdom would have, you know, very far reaching ramifications for them on the whole host of issues and if theres another Scottish Referendum if britain votes to leave european on june 23rd, i would think that based on kurcht projections, the scotts would choose to remain part of the United Kingdom unless its dramatic. Explaining how adam smith scotland disappeared and the euro scotland that we now know appeared. Thats not the stop. Something very fundal has changed there. Its those people who are looking for a good subject might think about that one. Theres a sail yant point which no one has mentioned on this independent case. The finance of Scottish Independence at the time the Scottish Referendum were 100 based on the idea they were going to have a stable high price in world market. That has proven to be untrue. Right now its not making a lot of money and it is in any case declining asset. Scott lant, if it is independent of this point is going to have to either hike taxes a lot or its going to have to cut spending radically. I know which one of those two options i would prefer, but its going to have to come down one of those roads absent a sizable and permanent increase in the world price of oil. So how do you make it work economically . Thats a question which the s p i dont think had any convincing answer to at the time of the independent referendum and then the answer they did have is much less convincing at this point. On a final point, i recall a couple of years ago there was a nice economist issue which had two articles in it which i thought were lovely. The first article was on Scottish Independence and the economist said ultimately if people wanted independent and govern themselves you cant say no and then you turn the page and rent the column on britain and europe and they said britain is absolutely staying in the European Union unthinkable under any conditions whatsoever. You say, well, okay, if youre in favor of Scottish Independence, personally, i mean, im skeptical about it, but if thats the way you want to win intellectual how does it not apply. Im not political. Incidentally. You know, seg way. Im from scotland. I have to mention, during the during last general election referendum, Party Leaders had debate. The s p on the stage happened to blender into exactly that thing that she they were talking the leaders were being asked questions about the membership. She rattled off this. Shes a pa tro niezing powerful. She started on auto pilot trying to lecture the rest of the uk and in the middle of her answer she realized what she was saying. She actually said that while, of course, just because you dont like things in the union, its not appropriate to be child or try to leave. You should get together Better Together was the Campaign Slogan for against for staying in the uk and she suddenly realized she actually used the word better and a couple of words later, stay together, and she had to stumble and then Start Talking a bit and i digress. How about an entirely different point actually its more to the analysis. Theres one word, which i think has made a lot of the discussion in the whole issue for a large number of people and thats turkey. And turkey not only represents a failure of the eu to deal with serious threat or a bully or somebody that has prepare today do whatever they want to further an agenda and the eu is seems incapable of rising not just to large in russia, but to anything on southern borders by the likes of turkey. Not only does it present that feeling. It presents a serious imminent jump in immigration numbers and st stresses of resources if turkey were to see the membership fee. So it is, perhaps, its less said than it should be, its one of the threads as far as im aware, a lot of peoples thinking why possibly no has to happen because i will carry myself as somebody who is proe for a long time. Things are my question is that your announcer said the u. S. Should go back to prior the three pillars, unfortunately, they dont address the problem of turkey. And, in fact, turkey would be in the third one would be part of this democratic solution and peaceful country. Its also extensively working towards pros sparety for its own population partly by spreading them or two. But, it doesnt revisiting that those three pillars doesnt help us address the fact that its also almost literally the trojan horse thats being ruled into europe. And im wondering is this is that the absence of the analysis that includes that. Is that intentional on your part or do you do you not see the turkish issues being that big or is it because that there isnt really brother like the United States doesnt have an answer to islamic radicalization. Well, obviously, theres some sort of larger questions there, which this panel cant really address about, you know, the nature of u. S. Policy the regime itself and i share all of your skepticism or the nature of in turkey which i think is severely damaged, if not destroyed one of the very few states in the wider middle east that was based on the model of the Western State system and im not here to apologize, but he did set up a state which offered some possibility moving towards the western model and that was a good thing. The reason i didnt mention turkey is that i have no more desire to see turkey see se to the european have than i have vladimir union russia seeding. I mean, this strikes me as something that is a very far off, b, it should be very far off, and c, i have no desire to bring it closer in the near future. There, to one, government is impressive and intolerant in the extreme. I see no favorable Political Trends in turkey that would cause me to reassess that point of view. I see no genuine desire among the nations of europe, and certainly not the peoples of europe for turkey to join the European Union, for that matter, im not even sure that the turks are really all that enthusiastic, at this point, about joining the European Union. What i do know is that David Cameron says that hes very enthusiastic for turkey to join the European Union now, ip mean, you can, if you really stretch, sort of make the argument, which Prime Ministers have made for a long time, the more people we have in the European Union the less effectively it will work and more effectively we can muck it up. I dont think that tragedy has been terrible and i have no desire, whatsoever, to try it with turkey, which is far too large in its own way significant concrete to play that kind of game with. So i dont think turkey is a fit member of the European Union. But maybe im illsuited to say that because i dont really like the European Union much anyhow. If i were a proud turk, why what i would i want to be with brussels. It doesnt have any appeal to me whatsoever, although i can entirely understand why its an unattractive prospect for people in the uk, or for that matter, in france, germany, lots of oth just to follow up on teds excellent points. Turkey has a population of roughly 80 million and if turkey joins the European Union, thats a this is a Massive Development and i think that thats another reason why the british should be keen to exit the eu and at the moment frankly i think Angela Merkel is operating a sort of appeasement policy towards erdogans regime. Basically also bribing the turks to take back refugees. This isnt you know, this deal isnt going to last, you know, forever with you know, with turkey and i think that, you know, europe is playing a very dangerous game with the turks at the moment, but without a doubt if turkey does enter the European Union eventually that will be a huge game changer within europe and you will see large Scale Migration from turkey to parts of western europe, including to the United Kingdom. And you also need to bear in mind as well with the large refugee influx, the germans took in about 1. 2 million refugees last year, they took in 200,000 refugees in february march alone this year and i would expect that more refugees will find their way over to or migrants actually will find their way into germany eventually. Within a number of years the migrants or refugees will possess german passports. Those passports will give them then the right to travel anywhere inside the European Union, including to the united kingd kingdom. So germanys problem becomes britains problem as well. You raise a very important point here about Mass Immigration into europe, longterm consequences and these are very big factors i think as well in shaping the debate in britain over brexit. Victoria. I just had an observation that i think goes to teds point about what has happened to the policy towards europe which is at day that our current president made the decision to send back the Winston Churchill bust he made another decision who was going to be the first foreign leader he would call after his inauguration and it was erdogan. So i think those two choices on, you know, january 20th, 2009 really set us on as the United States on a trajectory that has pursued a well counterproductive policy along these lines. Its interesting how quickly things can change. I remember when i worked for the conservative party a decade ago before all this nonsense with erdogan, this craziness with erdogan there was this thinking that because of the historical relationship between britain and the turks and the British Conservative Party and the turks and because voting in the council is based on population getting turkey inside the European Union was a way that there could be like an anglo turkish axis of control and influence inside the institutions. Now we all know this is a bunch of nonsense and erdogan is someone you cant work with and cant trust. The jahir in the front and i think this probably will be the last question. Hi, my name is mike, im an intern with Family Research council. Just twopart question. The first one would be with the turkey issue, would turkey if they are not allowed to be more influence in the eu or join the eu, would they start straying toward the middle eastern side towards the opec nations and is that concerning . Then the second part question would be if the eu breaks away like you said, dr. Gardiner, if britain breaks away from the eu and you said other countries would do the same, how would that affect greece or even the eastern blocks such as romania or hundred gary where they have weak economies, how would that affect those nations or even tunisia . Let me say a few words on both of those points. My concern is not that turkey will stray towards the middle east. My concern is that the erdogan regime has already pushed turkey to stray towards the middle east if i can put it that way. Erdogans regime represents, among other things, a deliberate rejection of kamal turks believe that the future of turkey had to lie in turkey and that the idea of a new Ottoman Empire was a dangerous delusion which had cost turkey, you know, in the world war i and pre world war i years lots of lives and lots of treasure, turkish lives and turkish treasure and that the answer was to have a turn i wish state that was for turks not a turkish empire. The erdogan regime was nud ottoman role. The European Union did nothing to dissuade him from any of this. These are internal turkish developments which i think are highly undesirable, but the European Union is not in any form an answer to this question. This is a turkish issue. On the question of economics, greece has undergone an comiccon traction has bigger than our Great Depression. It has done that because it is part of a currency zone and if you cant devalue your currency externally which is not a cure for lots of things, but if you cannot devalue your currency externally you must devalue your economy internally and that is a polite way of saying you need to have extremely high unemployment. Now, getting out of the euro is not a sovereign cure for all of greeces and other places economic problems, but if you cant recover your external Financial Freedom youre going to devalue internally. Thats the way it works. So problem number one that these places have is they are in the euro or at least some of them are. Victoria. I would just reiterate teds point or build off that point a little bit and say that, i mean, the problems greece is experiencing are greek problems and to say that youre going to shackel the u. K. To solve those problems i think winds up being from an American Perspective counterproductive because then youre just undermining the u. K. s ability to act as a Financial Partner to the United States. Surely out of selfinterest i dont think that helps us. From the greek perspective id say that if being in the euro is fundamentally the cause of these problems youre never going to solve it if you make your prime detective staying in the euro. Just a point on your second question about the economics and impact of brexit on the rest of europe. As ted mentioned earlier, undoubtedly the greeks are better off outside of the european single currency and the euro really at the end of the day its a political project more than anything else. Its an artificial construct. And, you know, youre beginning to see that construct crumbling and, you know, whether brexit takes place or not i think youre going to see the euro beginning to crumble and eventually fall apart. At the moment, i mean, greece basically is being given orders basically like brussels and berlin, its not a sovereign nation, it barely runs its own government at the moment. Thats an unsustainable situation. And also i think theres a limit as well to the you know, to the generosity of german taxpayers, although undoubtedly the germans have benefited significantly from the euro, but i think the idea of baiting out southern European Countries i think patience is going to run out in germany. Angela merkel faces a very, very tough election next year. I think that you are seeing the landscape, political landscape, starting to change across europe and a greater momentum towards sovereignty and selfdetermination all across the european continent. And i do think that, you know, countries such as greece are far better off if they are unshackled from the from the euro. I think greece is better off frankly if its outside of the European Union as well and i do believe that brexit will certainly encourage many other European Countries to hold popul popular referenda and i think that the european elites that have dominated the continent for many, many decades could well be taken by surprise when european populations actually vote on their future in the eu. Even in germany there is rising euroscepticism now and the european project is being fundamentally challenged all over europe, not just in not just in britain. That i think is a very good thing because anything that advances the drive towards democracy and selfdetermination and taking powers away from centralized bureaucracies back into the hands of the people, i think that is a very positive development. Great. Well, to conclude for the british citizens in the audience you still have a few days to make sure you register to vote on the referendum and every vote will count, thats for sure. Hopefully you learned something and were swayed today. For everyone else thank you for coming. Please join me in thanking our panelists. [ applause ] and in 24 hours times or maybe a little bit less you can watch this again if youre so inclined on heritage. Org. Thank you. Live now to