>> thank you, for these fascinating perspectives. i don't want to take a lot of time this january because i'm really here to learn. congress has been in session only briefly since brexit took place. they're coming back to work in two weeks. run for your lives. so this will be a real opportunity for us to explore some ideas as both historian of -- and a practitioner of democracy i'm acutely conscious, particularly in recent months of the challenges that democracy presents. but at the same time, it's been wonderful to see a very positive example of democracy in action and what we very much want to explore on the hill is the opportunity that this presents to us. and as ian was talking about the gordyan knot, i was

thinking about that moment years ago when the young alexander the great was confronted with the knot his genius idea to slice it in half was only the first step. he then had to go on and conquer asia. so i think brexit can stand as the moment of the slice but the conquering of asia is very much what your new ees say addresses. and i think for us, as we look at your conclusions and your path forward, in some ways it's a cautionary tale. the notion of this unbelievable burden of regulation that has come out of brussels and has tangled up your own legal system is something we have to be intensely conscious of as we propose new legislation over here. and as predictions are very difficult about what our political makeup is going to be going forward the thing i found myself reflecting on as our

critical role is to redefine what free trade means. the concept of free trade has been to demonize relentlessly over the course of the last year and it's made -- it's turned into basically a dirty word in american politics. and i think we do need to accept some culpable in that situation. i think both the atlantic and pacific trade deals like the e.u. were in concept supposed to lead to greater liberalization, freedom, economic interaction. but as someone who is familiar with those deals and anyone else who is can tell you that is not the case. that the liberal agenda of regulation of environmental reform of labor reform has crept in and permeated those deals to the point that they are in many ways i find antithetical to the principles

of free trade. and so as we look at brexit and what now is possible, and this is something senator cruz was very pleased to take the lead on, both in terms of the bike cameral letter to president obama and then also in his op ed in the times, in which i guess titled actually but also made this argument that greapt should be at the front of the cue for a free trade deal not at the back. but what opportunity does brexit pose to us in congress and beyond to redefine free trade and to look at what it's -- a bilateral deal between the u.s. and the u.k. might look like and how that can be explained to our relative population as a tremendous opportunity for both our country. another idea i think we should take very seriously is looking beyond geography as a determining factor if we are going to look at multilateral deals. because what i might want to do

with great britain might be much more similar to what i might want to do with say japan than what i might want to do with greece or say vietnam. i think there are opportunities with all those countries for free trade expansion but it is not going to be a wun size fits all. and if we insist on looking at pacific asia north america as our combaundriss i think we lose sight again of an opportunity. i would also like to reflect on the very positive developments that ted was talking about in terms of argue geden not happening in the u.k. which we are of course all very pleased in congress that the world did not end. and again i think that's a powerful remind thear the priorityizing the status quo, while stability and predictability are both very valuable and in commodity that is are in somewhat short supply these days, there can be worse

hings than -- the status quo is not necessarily our ultimate goal. and that change, while disruptive, can be positive. and so what i would like to leave you with is really a challenge to all our friends at heritage as well as our friends in the u.k. to spend the coming days, weeks, months, the end of this congress, the beginning of the next one looking at what that free trade deal between the united states and the united kingdom might look like. i was very struck by your comments on immigration. i think this is going to be one of the great challenges to all of our nations as we go forward. i also was very heartened by what roary said about the financial sectors potential. i think that could be one of the great unifying elements that could bring the u.k. and the united states even closer together. so i don't want to take up any

more time that we can use for questions. but i think if we can pursue those ideas this can be a really valuable experience. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. and thank you to all of the panelists. i'm going to take the usual moderater's liberty and ask the first question. and after that we'll be happy to take questions from the audience. i'm just going to ask particularly ian and rory and also marianne to take victoria's question about the possible structure and nature of a u.s.-u.k. free trade area agreement both in terms of the content of the agreement per se and also sort of the broader question of whether it should be a u.s.-u.k. deal, whether it should be a revised or a new north atlantic free trade area, whether it should be a worldwide community democracy free trade area. there are a lot of possible permutations which you're very familiar with. if you can talk about the

content of the agreement and and f the broader nature structure of it. >> i think that there are lots of different ways that this could go. what -- what's very interesting is that when senator phil graham looked at this issue back in 19ub9 or there abouts i think it was, the benefits that would accrue to the u.k. and the u.s. were actually surprisingly low as a result of free trade. and that's because we already have largely free trade between the u.k. and the u.s. there are just -- the time there were just a few tariff barriers that needed to be reduced. the big question is nontariff barriers. and that's where the i think there has been a bit of big increase in nontariff barriers on both sides since those days. so i think any free trade agreement would have to concentrate on nontariff

barriers. and there are i think the best thing to do would probably be to look at nontariff barriers through a prism of regulatory equivalence rather than regulatory harmanization. as victoria was saying, what's happened with trade deals over the past 15 years or so, if you notice american free trade deals have stopped being called free trade deals. they are now trade and investment partnerships and things like that. they're not free trade deals. because what they've done is just harmanized the regulatory burden on both sides. so the nontariff barrier disappears. but it's really still there. just on both sides at the same time. so i think what would be helpful is for us to return to the good old federalist idea of regulatory competition. and recognize that regulatory systems are equivalent but they don't have to be harmanized

they can be in competition with each other so that we can experiment and find the best system of regulation. the one which provides the most benefit with the least burden on business. so that's the way i think free trade agreements between the u.k. and the u.s. should really have to concentrate on those areas. in terms of the potential old ture, obviously good bilateral u.k.-u.s. free trade agreement is perfectly possible. i think we could be more amcombishes. we suggest a couple of other ideas. the possible expansion of nafta to be north atlantic free trade area. also including iceland and norway and if ireland should choose to join us very well to have them on board.

that sort of thing. but then there's another idea which was actually dreamt up in the these halls several years ago. our old colleague came up with the idea of a global free trade agreement -- global free trade association which would be open to anybody who met certain criteria. and he's actually developed this idea again recently in a pamphlet called the institute of economic affairs in london where he suggests this could be done by act of parliament in the u.k. parliament -- the path that said anybody who met these certain criteria would be eligible for completely free trade with the united kingdom. and that would be a good way of kick starting the idea of a global free trade association. so i think there's many ways this can go. but as i say, i think nontariff barriers has to be the thing

that we look at the most. >> well, i agree with that. and i would also like to build on that. because there was one other model which was positted by years er minford a few ago. that was a universal free trade. the idea is that indeed apparently there's an idea in economics of the importance of being unimportant. in the sense that you don't have preferential free trade deals in effect. you have universal free trade. so it takes it out of the hands of government in putting particularly favorable status on watch making or financial services or whatever. and actually allow the market to drive competition and market to drive demands. so there's a sense here of an alternative vision of course in the days of political reality as we're living in now this may not be the thing to implement

tomorrow or the possible attempt to implement tomorrow. but certainly the idea of equivalencey which incidently we also see coming out of the european union now with the method to regulations they're looking at alternative ways to structure because they realize that if they cut themselves off as they have been doing for 43 plus years, then they're going to fall on their face yet again and again and again. and so if the u.k. can adopt an equivalence measure, the good work that you've done, the heritage foundation is also borne out some of those ideas, then that would be absolutely fantastic. but i think the big game, a more global aim, might be to work towards universal free trade where government is in effect out of the equation with regards to the safeguard

measures and tariffs and nontariff areas. and it allows the market, the consumer to find and drive demand. >> i have a feeling that idea will not be entirely unsympathetic to marineion. if she would like to offer a few more comments. >> britain is facing an abundance of riches. it can choose anything from patrick minford's unilateral liberalization of trade with the rest of the world whereby britain will simply abandon old tariffs on imports thereby making inports in their manufacturing productivity much lower and -- sorry. much less expensive and output much less expensive therefore much more competitive. so that you've got on the one hand. on the other hand, the nightmare scenario is really not all that bad. the nightmare scenario is that wtos.e stuck with and what do they mean? they mean apply tariff on

manufacturing goods at about 3.5% and agricultural goods at about 10%. all of that can be offset through better domestic economic policies in britain including a large corporate tax cut. so abundance of riches. >> i would just point out that for the sake of the audience that if there's any country that historicically has lived up to the idea of being a genuine free trading nation it's britain. from the middle of the 19th century up to depending on where you want to put it the 1920s or the 1930s. and britain is almost uniquely positioned in the world to do this because it has relatively few domestic natural resources and therefore structurally has to be a big importer of a lot of raw materials. which means that the more tariffs you put on raw materials that you import the more you disadvantage your own

manufacture exports and reexposhts. so from a structural point of view -- people talk about free trade as being a pie in the sky kind of idea. it's almost uniquely easy and uniquely beneficial for britain to be free trading because it imports a lot of raw materials and a lot of food and it has to do so. so taxing imports is taxing yourself. other countries i personally think good for everyone but especially easy in the u.k. >> just a quick note to say that some of the largest im ports cut over the last 250 years have happened unilaterally. india and china have liberalized their import regimes before they joined w.t.o. certainly in chinera's case and they have done so because they realized that it was the thing to do. so unilateral is not a crazy idea. it happens every day. >> back in the days when britain was a unilateral free trader, the nascent labor party

was very strongly in favor of free trade because they recognized the significant benefits that accrued to the working man as a result of free trade. >> i'm not sure how many elections the left -- because it wasn't just the labor party of course. i'm not sure how many elections the left in britain won gauze of cheap food or no taxes on bread. but it was a significant number. if i had time i could run through and come up with several of them. do you have any comments you would like to make on the exchange so far? >> i think from a congressional perspective, i think the most important point i would like to make is that while universal tree trade is an important philosophical ideal and goal post, that our immediate opportunity really is to work on something bilateral. and i take your point that we largely have free trade. and that's why i think the financial services sector is an opportunity in terms.

but that in an effort to reclaim from these partnerships hatever they are, that if we need principles to become the basis of p what we're trying to do with free trade we need to start with something practical and specific. and congress does best in that world. the broad philosophical world. >> i think unfortunately that's probably a fairly valuable reminder for all of us to bear in mind going forward. let's open it up to questions. i believe we have microphones in both aisle. thank you very much gentlemen. if you -- when you raise your hand i'll call on you. if you could state your name and your affiliation, if any. and i would ask everyone to keep questions brief and in the form of an actual question. >> thank you very much. the gentleman right there. >> i would like to go back to

the question of the schedule for the brexit move whenever be happen g to rather than free trade per se. it struck me particularly from the comments of ian, whose last name i can't see. but you talked more about -- sounded more to me like it was slamie slicing rather than cutting the gordion knot. i think you mentioned a five-year projection for 25% reduction in e.u. regulations that the u.k. would be subject to. that doesn't sound to me like the rhetoric of the two months ago, three months ago about what brexit really was going to be. it looks to me like we're going to be into a different phase but it's going to be something that will peter out over the decades. could you comment on that? >> well, there is -- there is a

timetable laid out in article invocation from the of article 50. two years to negotiate whatever al can be negotiated in that time. and it then is concluded by the council with the consent of the european parliament. that's why i suspect given how long trade agreements normally take, the quickest trade agreement in recent years was between australia and the u.k. and that took just under four years to complete. you're not going to get a comprehensive trade deal going with the e.u. in that two-year period. that's why i suspect that the deal will actually be much more e t the phasing out of the u. programs within that two-year period.

and also, what -- the very contentious question of what happens to the e.u. nationals resident in the u.k. and the e.u. residents in the e. ufment. so i think that's what that two-year period will take. but the fact is that there is just such a huge amount of regulation that has been imposed on the u.k. as a result of the e.u. and the question of what would it have done anyway. i think realistically you have to look at a longer time period for repealing the regulation. i suspect that there will be a prioritization within government and that government departments will be asked to come up with the regulations that can be quickly. even if they don't go for the regulation reduction commission that we suggest. so there may be some movement

very quickly but i think just realistically it's a huge task ahead of the government. >> it certainly is. given the weight of eu law over a real 40 years, challenge for any government or any future governments to unwind. i would just point out in terms of making a trade deal that it hasn't happened for say a full flenled member of the e.u. has been a member of the e.u. for 40 years has left the european union. as a result though the united kingsdom has currently all the regulations needed theoretically to make a trade deal. and the e.u. has 42 other trade deals around the world currently with countries as different from mexico to south korea, south africa, et cetera. so the u.k. has a unique position in this respect that

already there are regulations there that will allow it to make a free trade deal in a more appropriate time scale than in comparison to maybe others that have taken ten years or whatever. he other part of it is if we invoke article 50 we're still under the um brellavement so you couldn't theoretically or at least legally from day one start playing around with regulations that we would wish to repeal in due course. so that also a time conversation to think about because as a result we would be unable to change with a amatic potential upside both regulations that it tends to preside over in that two-year process. >> thank you. the gentleman seated on the aisle there. >> i am david smith of the

guardian. migesl going to speak at a double trump rally tonight. just interested in your instant reaction to that. do you think he can help trump in the election? and indeed do you see deeper parallels between the brexit campaign and the trump campaign? >> do you have a comment on that? >> thankfully i'm not a u.s. citizen. i don't vote in the u.s. and i'm very glad of that this year. >> i'm afraid the same goes for me. the parallels i think may have been overdone between trump and brexit. the sense is, however, i do see one parallel in the u.s. and the u.k. and that's how the media reported. not naming any state-run media in the united kingdom but they tend not to get out of london

albeit they're based in south forth. so they generally have an opinion based upon the london metropolitan elite rather than talking to countrymen throughout the united kingdom. and i see in many respects in the u.s. media concentrating on what's happening on the hill rather than what's happening in other parts of the u.s. so that's something about the campaign that may be reflective from the u.k. to the u.s. i don't know however how broadly the parallels between rump and brexit apply. >> there are parallels, sure. but there is a fundamental difference. and that is the entire political establishment in great britain with possible exception of the far left has embraced free trade as the future of the united kingdom and stands behind it and wants to have more of it. whereas, in the united states we are seeing both leading candidates basically opposing

and dissing it. and i think that's a terrible -- that will be a terrible choice come november. and that is the fundamental difference. and which makes the election in the united states, say, more dangerous. >> i'll just add one final point to that. that i've given u up trying to project the results of elections or referendum because it's been proven to be quite conclusively that people know something about these things, are as good about getting the outcome wrong as anyone else is. but if any candidate achieves the 50% vote share and 75% turnout they will have done well. and i don't want to sort of predict anything terribly hasty but i think that the winning margin of overall total vote in the united states come november is going to be a good deal less satisfactory and sizeable than e winning outcome than the

brexit referendum was. therefore, i'm probably inclined to take the outcome of the referendum very seriously because it demonstrated a pretty sizeable, very large vote and big turnout. while maybe that's something they should pay attention to. >> i would just like to concur ith rory's observations that the importance of both london and washington listening to the rest of the u.k. and the united states is vital and i think that is a great lesson to learn from both. >> the gentleman seated right in the absolute center of the auditor yunl. andrew. >> thank you. i'm retired. the impression i got from coverage of the brexit vote is that a lot of the vote was basically in opposition to call

for refugee immigration, specifically by u.n. secretary general. i'm wondering how the brexit vote is going to impact britain's response to calls for refugee immigration from the u.n. and other international organizations. >> well, from my understanding the international trade -- or international obligation that is we have regarding refugees are unchanged by the brexit vote. indeed, there's a wider issue with the european union of migration concerning refugees and so-called economic migrants. the question is how many have been coming through syria into the european union who are genuine refugees or who are indeed economic migrants. that's a question for the european union to solve in that respect. there was in a way a vote in the prefment vote about

immigration, a concern about immigration. but ultimately the vote was to take back control of the ability to make our own immigration system. and now we have voted to leave the european union. that ability to make an immigration system is now there, it's just a matter of which g immigration model we adopt. and in our particular paper we put forward the immigration tariff model which is nationality neutral, looks to identify skills and qualifications, and as a result hopefully if implemented would attract the best and the brightest from around the world. but as a result of the brexit vote, i believe that no other international obligation concerning refugee status and the like has changed whatsoever. >> let me sort of add a codea to that. there have been a lot of commentary especially in the united states but also in the

u.k. to a certain extent on the immigration and migration issue. i don't want to go into the whole detail but you have to look back at the history of immigration into the u.k. really since the late 1990s. and shortly after tony blair's government comes in in 97 you see a substantial surge, a very large surge of immigration into the u.k. and almost immediately you begin to get promises from politicians, first loiber then conservative, saying yes the numbers are too high, it's too rapid and we're having trouble providing schools and hospitals and housing. and yet the numbers continue to climb. and this happened for about 20 years. and over the course of that time promises were made by every political party and the consensus in british polling was about 80% that immigration was too high. almost a universal consensus. only on the very far left

spectrum was there a rejection of the this consensus. so to the extent that immigration was a significant factor, i don't think it was a syrian issue, although i'm sure there were anxieties about the middle east. i think it was a reaction to almost 20 years of very high immigration coupled crucially with promises that were never kept by politicians from all parties that they wouldn't do something about it. well, if they had done something about it, perhaps the referendum vote would have gone another way. but they didn't. and so is the referendum voted went the way it did. and the result is now exactly s rory and ian laid out that people said you said you were going to control the situation, you haven't sorks we're going to control it for you. well, now britain is going to have the power to define its own system. and i think the system that ian and rory have laid out is certainly worth a lot of very careful conversation.

it avoids the difficulties of the points based system and would allow the u.k. to remain open which i think is vital to talent and skill. from everywhere around the world. i think that's violetly important. >> i just add one more point which is relevance to the refugee issue in relation to the immigration tariff. people who are fleeing countries spend an awful lot of money, they pool resources in order to get out of those hell holes. and the trouble is at the moment that money is going to criminals who then have no compunks of putting them to seed in leaky boats that would sink. and other terrible terrible things. any humane person would condemn. an immigration tariff basically takes the sense -- you'll still pay some money but it will go

the government that you are -- of the country that you wanted to come to. almost as a hedge against the possibility that you will use their welfare system. so by our calculations the immigration tariff would to government that is they can use to deal with any immigration issues that come up. >> i think we have time unfortunately for only one more question so let's take a question from the gentleman back here. >> i was just curious if the panel could describe what you think brexit will do to the political legitimacy of the e.u. particularly as it relates to some country whose have been looking to get into the e.u. for the past 20 or so years. >> that's a very interesting

closing question. let's let rory and ian deal with that first. and maryland and victoria if you want to weigh in too. >> i think the answer to that will depend on what direction the e.u. takes now. i think marion laid out a very plausible scenario that we've seen peak centralization and perhaps the e.u. might itself become serious with things like be sidry. if the evment u. had been serious, the brexit vote may never have happened. o what we may see is an e.u. that is more responsive to the demands of its member states controlling of them when they enter. again, the former prime minister of the czech republic pointed out that he had spent years repealing all the soviet

laws and then when he joined the eu he had to start reimposing them. so if it's treated seriously then that isn't as big a problem. at which point i think the e.u. becomes more attractive to new nations than it is at the moment. >> i do agree with that. but i would also note that over leaders have ys met off the coast of italy to discuss the future direction of the european union. this cannot be a click. the european union cannot insulate itself with its three prominent members defining terms for other member states. they need to learn from their istakes and actually broaden to take conversation to others on the council. ultimately if they don't they might go the way of the league

of nations which effectively had the same scenario with the united kingdom and france looking to exert their power without taking any conversation into the -- for the other member states. so the e.u. does have a so they do have a choice. to memberer back states and allowing for states that may wish to join. they are going to be listened to. new onesare the big going to come from? i do not think that negotiations with turkey had been serious. ukraine is probably a very long away from being able to

join the european union. area forthe next big the eu? >> i like to end on an optimistic note. ro --xistence of the eu even if the eu desire to do such a thing, and there is not evidence. it has the desire to support a greater degree of sovereignty. exerciseis going to pressure to clamp down even more tightly on remaining nationstates. e forwilling to hop the best, but i fear for the

worst. >> any closing comment? >> i think the eu will still remain a desirable place to be a member of her countries which are very poor. --hough the, belarus moldova, ukraine, georgia would love to join. the question is whether the eu can retain the prosperous countries, which infuse with a certain level of accountability, such as it is, or good governance and so on. if denmark, holland, sweden,

goes you are stuck with states and the eu become something very different. euterms of what will the look like. getting out of the eu does not believe in isolationism. the discussion is about supranational against intergovernmental. if you can't return to an intergovernmental way of doing things, you get accountability. the government of sweden at sign ed to a certain treaty, they need visa or of the public. if they lose the support, the country withdraws from the treaty. the eu tells you about the way you behave.

more intergovernmental listen implies greater democratic accountability. i think this is the way it is going. >> i think the great challenge to the eu is to define its rationale. weas struck when they say should go to the graveyards of world war ii. preventing another massive lalnd europe is not our rationale. if the leaders are still using, keeping the germans out of paris as their prime goal, i hate we have larger problems. that becomes the problem, to figure out this in a 21st-century context. >> that is a good point to

close. let me thank everyone for their wonderful contributions and all of you for joining us. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> "washington journal" is live every day.

coming up this morning, an editor will join us for the 100th anniversary of the national park service. and then an interview with mike reynolds. he will talk about the national s andservice at 100 year what issues the service faces going forward. a reporter and mark fisher for "the post" will discuss their biography about donald trump. the book is an examination of the life of the republican nominee and was written with more than two dozen researchers and editors. t-shirt to watch "washington journal" -- be sure to watch "washington journal" beginning

at 7:00 eastern. >> hillary clinton can aim in reno, nevada, today. we will bring you her remarks live 3:00 eastern, here on c-span. donald trump campaign on wednesday with one of the leaders of the campaign to leave the european union. this is about 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our governor, bill ryan.

♪ up?aller i we fired are you ready to make america great again? i brought a couple of friends with me. jeff sessions. give him a hand. giuliani.mayor, rudy now the mayor we have waited for -- the man and waited for. the man that we have waited for. the man that all america is waiting for to make us great again. ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the united states, donald j. trump.

♪ there a no doubt i love this land usa ♪ess the i am proud to be an american ♪ere at least i know i'm free

mr. trump: thank you, everybody. thank you very much. thank youovernor, very much. what a group. very excited to be with you tonight. thank you very much. the people of jackson and mississippi have such incredible energy. thank you for all this or you have given me from the beginning. i will not forget it. right from the beginning. right from the beginning. this is the spirit we need to rebuild our country. 100%. freeis our chance to bring

from me bitter failures to create a new american future. [cheers] mr. trump: to everyone watching across our nation, to everyone who has been let down by our terrible politicians, i am asking for your vote on november 8. [cheers] mr. trump: this is your chance to remove the special interest from their throne of power to the government of, by, and for the people. [applause]

mr. trump: no one will be left behind anymore. [cheers] mr. trump: i would like to take this moment to send our thoughts and prayers to everyone at the american university in kabul, afghanistan. they are going through a lot. radical islamic terrorism. [cheers] [applause] anyone who one name our enemy is not fit to lead our country. [cheers] mr. trump: eight years of obama-

clinton policies have sacrificed our safety and undermined our freedom and independence. to otherhave moved countries. islamic terrorism has spread within our shores. has threatened, totally threatened our security. in americawe face are similar to the issues faced in britain during the referendum on membership in the european union. known ashe movement brexit. on june 23, the people of britain voted to declare

their independence, which is what we're looking to do also, folks. [cheers] mr. trump: from the international government, which has not worked. they voted to break away by large corporations and media executives who believe in a world without borders. they voted to reclaim control over immigration, over their economy, their government. greatg people and the people of the uk took control of their destiny. [cheers] mr. trump: the people profiting

system, and it is rigged, the multinational celebrities,ia trying to scare the british people out of voting for change. the same day is happening right here in the united states. it is happening. all the people benefiting from our rigged system do not want things to change. they want you to believe things cannot be changed, and they can so easily, and so smartly. we all know things have to change. we have no choice. they have to change right now. [cheers]

mr. trump: before the vote, i said that britain would leave the eu. thetimes referred to as european union. and i said it. i took a lot of heat when i said it. was very what -- i supportive of their right to do it and to take control of their future, like what we are going to be doing on november 8. [cheers] mr. trump: hillary clinton has been on the wrong side of history in every major decision. she has only made bad decisions. she doesn't know know she is doing, folks. too.ot this one wrong,

[boos] [cheers] she got this one wrong, too, folks. she gets them all all. she gets them all wrong. she got the e-mails wrong. and now hillary wants to surrender america to globalism. just what we do not want. she wants a country without borders. she wants deals written for the benefit foreign corporations. she wants the government that ignores the will of the people. outwants to seell

american security to the clinton foundation for a day pile of cash. it is hard to tell with the clinton foundation ends and where the state department begins. according to the associated press, more than half the meeting she took as secretary of state with people outside government were with foundation donors. [boos] mr. trump: hillary clinton does not believe in america first. first.eve in america [cheers] mr. trump: hillary believes iin n donors first and special

interests and lobbyists. she will never straighten out our country. she doesn't have the strength, the stamina, or the ability to straighten out our country. ofwill have four more yearrs sf obama, and that is what we do not want. she would rather get a job to a refugee from overseas than an unemployed american veteran, or two an unemployed african-american or and hispanic. [boos] mr. trump: the job of a public official is to serve and protect the citizens of the united states. [cheers] mr. trump: not illegal immigrants, not foreign

nationals seeking entry, but the people living here today including millions of african american and the spanish citizens -- and hispanic citizens. millions. millions. being treated very unfairly. my focus will always be on the 300-being of more than million american citizens who call this country home and who love their country. [cheers] >> usa! usa! usa! usa! mr. trump: i will fight for their security and for their

jobs. we will not let jobs be taken out of our country, be ripped out of our country and moved to mexico and many other countries. we will not let it happen anymore. [cheers] mr. trump: we will be fighting for their jobs and for your families. that, i can tell you. it ends what has been going on on november 8. [cheers] mr. trump: we will have one american nation, not divided. will be together. hillary clinton has betrayed her duties to the people. to read 8 is our chance declare american independence. [cheers] mr. trump: this is a great honor

for me. inviteing right now to onto the stage the man behind brexit and a man who lead brilliantly the united kingdom independence party in this fight and won despite all odds, this fight horrible name-calling, despite so many obstacles. ladies and gentlemen, mr. nigel barage. [cheers] [applause] much. thank you very thank you and good evening, mississippi. i come with a message of hope and optimism.

people, thee ordinary people are prepared to stand up and fight for what they believe in, we can overcome hte the big banks and the multinationals. and we did it. we made june 23 our independence day when we smashed the establishment. and we did it. we saw experts from all over the world. we saw the international monetary fund. we saw global leaders giving us project, telling us if we voted, not to be -run by a bunch of old men in brussels.

it doesn't really matter, does it? [cheers] nigel: but they told us our economy would fall say cliff. they told us investment would leave our country. we mighteron told us even get world war iii, and we saw the polling industry doing everything they could to demoralize our campaign. that morning, they put us 10 points behind. they were all wrong. wet the brexit campaign did, reached those people who were let down. we reached those people.

[cheers] nigel: we reached those people that have never voted in their lives. they could take back control of their country, take back control of the borders and get back there pride and self respect. [cheers] nigel: now the prime minister decided to play the card. a foreign visitor to talk to us. we were visited by barack obama. [boos] and he treated us as it we were nothing. one of the oldest functioning

democracies in the world. he was telling us to vote re main. having condemned his behavior, i could not possibly tell you how you should vote in this election. but, but -- [cheers] nigel: i get it. i get it. i am hearing you. if i was an american citizen, i wouldn't vote for hillary if you hate -- paid me. i wouldn't vote for hillary if she paid me.

the message is clear. theireel so many of representatives are part of the liberal media. they feel people are not standing up for them given up on the process. i think you have a fantastic opportunity with this campaign. you can go out and beat the commentators. you can beat washington. and you will do it by doing what you did for brexit. we had our own people's army who went out and went to meet people where they work and socialized. to go out, if this was there one

e.me and to vote for chang if you want change this country, you better get your walking suits on. you better get out there campaigning. anything is, possible if enough decent people are prepared to stand up against the establishment. thank you very much indeed. [cheers] [applause] mr. trump: wow. thank you, nigel. what a job. what a job he did. thank you, nigel. that was some job that he did, against all odds. everybody said it couldn't be

done. it is be like a very wise decision. i really congratulate nigel. thank you for being here. if i may, we had some tremendous polls come out today. i refused to mention it, that they are very good. we're leaving in a lot of locations. thank you. it is time for america to recapture like you just heard, to recapture our destiny. our government leaders and our media have totally lost touch with people. they have. unique no better evidence of that than the fact that the media ignores the play of americans who have lost their

children to illegal immigrants, but spends day after day pushing for amnesty for those here in total violation of the law. we cannot allow that that. why do our leaders figure out to help those that are here illegally? and they spend and they work and they try so hard to help them but they don't try helping american citizens, some of whom have been devastated by what's happened to their children and their families. devastated. my priorities will never change. jobs, wages and security for americans.

any immigration policy i support as president must pass these three tests. first, it must improve jobs and wages for united states itizens. we have people in this room who are making real money in wages 18 years ago, were not working as hard as they're working now, and they've gotten older, not supposed to be that way. and in many cases, and largely because of the disaster known as obamacare, they have to hold two jobs, not one, but two jobs. and in some cases, three jobs. not going to happen, folks. not going to happen.

plus it must improve the safety and security for united states citizens. third, it must improve the quality of life for u.s. citizens, the quality of life. our quality of life is going down. our level of security. you look back years, you're more insecure now in terms of security than you were 10, 15 and 20 years ago. hillary clinton's radical immigration plan fails these tests, and it fails them very, very badly. her push for open borders will lower the wages and kill the jobs of lawful american residents. her support for catch and release will put innocent american lives at risk and

already has. just like president obama released the illegal immigrant t the border who then killed magnificent, magnificent sarah root. yesterday i met with her mom, michelle. hillary clinton only talks about the separation of families who choose to come here illegally. i want to focus on the american family who have been permanently separated from their children because of the sanctuary cities and open borders that hillary clinton so strongly supports. ere is the sanctuary for american children? where is that sanctuary?

the dreamers we never talk about are the young americans. why aren't young americans dreamers, also? i want my dreamers to be young americans. hillary clinton also wants to 620,000 ing in , a gees in her first term large number of whom come from countries where women and gays are horribly brutalized, which will weaken our tolerant way of life. i only want to bring people to our country who share our values and love our people and are capable of loving america.

importantly, i will also create millions and millions of jobs for our people. we are going to cut taxes, reduce regulations, fix our trade deals, unleash american energy, and repeal and replace the horror show known as obamacare. we are going to create jobs, obs, jobs. i will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created. elieve me. so we'll have millions and millions of jobs, jobs like

you've never seen in this country before because our jobs are being stolen from us, our companies are being stolen from us, our manufacturing is down by 40% and 50% and numbers that nobody even believes. those days will be over if donald trump is elected president of the united states. elieve me. higher income, new wages, companies all across this ation will come in and form. we are going to renegotiate the worst trade deal ever made not only in this country but anywhere in the world known as nafta and signed by bill clinton. we're going to stand up to hina on trade.

we're going to keep out of what will be a disastrous trade deal. transpacific partnership. t.p.p. it will not happen with me. it will absolutely happen with crooked hillary. elieve me. this state has lost more than 40% of its manufacturing jobs since bill clinton signed nafta, and it's lost one in four manufacturing jobs since he put china into the world trade organization. oth deals supported by hillary clinton. horrible deals, destructive deals. what those deals have done to our jobs and to our country. we are going to bring back jobs

o mississippi. and in north carolina, which has treated me so well. and ohio. and to michigan where our auto plants are leaving and leaving and leaving and going to mexico nd other places. and to pennsylvania where i went to school and to maryland and all across this land we're going to bring our jobs back and we're not going to let our obs be taken away. [crowd chanting "aufment"] >> and i'm making it my personal mission to bring prosperity and safety to our

very, very troubled inner cities. [crowd chanting u.s.a."] >> the democratic party has failed and betrayed the african-american community. democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty than we've ever had in those ommunities before. nearly four in 10 african-american children live in poverty. 58% of african-american youth are not working. more than 2,700 people have been shot in chicago since the beginning of this year alone.

17%.nt crime has risen and in america's 50 largest cities, it's only going one way , folks, and that's up. homicides are up nearly 50% in washington, d.c. and more than 60% from last year in baltimore. the democratic party has taken the votes of african-americans totally for granted and have one nothing in return. that's just as soon get your support and they've done nothing, absolutely nothing to deserve it. it's time to give the democrats

some competition for african-american votes and for ispanic votes. it's time to rebuild the inner cities of america and do it properly. it's time to reject the failed leadership of a rigged political system. and i was the first to use that term. it's a rigged, disgusting ystem. to those hurting and suffering and left behind, i say, what do you have to lose by trying something new? what do you have to lose by voting for donald trump for president? what do you have to lose? i will fix the problem. i will fix the problem. if you keep voting for the same

people, you will keep getting the same horrible results. but i also want to talk about what you have to gain. what do you have to gain? school choice and allow charter schools to absolutely thrive. what else will we gain? we'll empower young americans to pursue their dreams of opening a small business and make it easier for them to get the credit that they need. we will renegotiate our horrible trade deals to bring back jobs and opportunity and the african-american community and the hispanic community will

be our biggest beneficiary of hat. we will lower taxes and unleash job creation and we will tap into trillions of dollars in new energy wealth that we never even knew we had before. from protect your jobs illegal immigration and broken visa programs. and we will rebuild the roads, the bridges, the infrastructure, the tunnels, the airports in your communities and we will rebuild it with our companies, with our eal, and with our labor.

hillary clinton is a bigot who es people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future. she's going to do nothing for african-americans. she's going to do nothing for the hispanics. she's only going to take care of herself, her husband, her consultants, her donors. these are the people she cares about. she doesn't care what her policies have done to your communities. she doesn't care. remember this, you've had her policies, democrats, running some of the inner cities for

50, 70, 80, even over 100 years. and look what you have right now. poverty, no education, crime. you can't walk down the street with your child. we're going to fix it. we're going to fix it. hillary clinton has no remorse. i will fight to create a better .uture for every american the hedge funds and wall street donors are throwing money at hillary clinton to try and stop our change agenda. of course if we start looking at the polls they may stop doing that. they will have to start studying those polls. that's why you need to come out and have to vote.

ou have to vote. that is why you must make your voice heard on november 8. you have to do it. another crucial issue in this race is national security. hillary clinton may go down as e worst secretary of state that has ever served at that office. let's look back at the middle east. at the very beginning of 2009. before the obama-clinton administration that i call a catastrophe took over. ibya was stable. syria was under control. iraq was experiencing a

reduction in options. the group that would become what we now call isis was close to being extinguished and would never have happened. iran was being choked off by economic sanctions. fast forward to today after ending $4 trillion, maybe $5 trillion, nobody even knows how much money has been sucked out f our country. what have the decisions of obama-clinton produced? libya is in ruins. our ambassador and three other brave americans are dead and isis has gained a new base of operations. they're all over the world. syria is in the midst of a totally disastrous civil war. isis controls large portions of the territory.

a refugee crisis now threatens europe and is threatening the united states because hillary is allowing these people to pour into our country and we don't know who they are, where they come from, we know nothing. iraq is in chaos. and isis is on the loose. isis has spread across the middle east and into the west. at the same time, isis is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into europe and definitely, folks, i've been very good at predicting definitely into the united states. iran has become the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with up to $150 billion in cash released by the united states,

in another $400 million cash, cash, cash, ransom that president obama said had nothing to do with ransom, had othing to do with the hostages and his own people said he was wrong. he lied. he lied. just like he said obamacare, keep your plans, you'll keep your doctor, 28 times, keep your plan, keep your doctor, and because of that lie democrats that would never have passed it passed it and now regret they passed it because it's a total disaster. worst of all, the nuclear deal puts iran, the number one state

sponsor of radical islamic terrorism on a path to nuclear weapons. in short, the obama clinton foreign policy has unleashed us, destabilized the middle east and put the nation of constantly chants death to america and in a dominant position of regional power and in fact, inspiring to be a dominant world power. and we put them there over the ast three years. this is the legacy of barack obama and hillary clinton. eath, destruction, terrorism and weakness.

but hillary clinton's legacy does not have to be america's legacy. we're going to end the era of nation building, a disastrous concept, a disastrous era. d create new foreign policy, joined by our partners in the middle east that is focused completely on destroying isis. e have no choice, destroying isis. we will extend the hand of friendship to any nation that will work with us in good faith on this vital mission. i have a message for the terrorists trying to kill our people, our citizens, trying to hurt the world but trying to hurt the united states. we will find you. we will destroy you. and we will win!

crowd chanting "u.s.a."] >> thank you. thank you. this is not only a military fight but it will also require cyberwarfare and financial warfare. it's also an ideological site. we will confront the hate. it's just so hateful, ideology of radical islam. and promote american values and american culture and america's system of government. only by standing up for and supporting -- we have to stand up for and support our values, can we become a united country nce again.

a country of great jobs and wealth. a country of security and freedom. a country of strength and unity , the future is limitless. all we have to do is believe in america once again. we have to believe can happen. it can happen. faith in t back our america's special destiny. we will lift the burdens on small business which is being spoke extinction of what's happening in our government. we'll create a level playing field for american workers. we'll never, ever let what's happened to them happen to them again.

we'll establish justice and opportunity and safety in every community in the land. i am asking for the vote of every citizen in this country. african-american, hispanic, all americans. all americans who want a better, brighter, and stronger future for yourselves and for our country. >> i am the change candidate. this is our moment to show the whole world that america is back, bigger and better and stronger than ever before. i am asking for your vote so i can be your champion in the white house. i'll be your champion and i'll

work hard to be your champion. and i won't be playing golf instead of going to see the people in louisiana who have been devastated by floods. i'm going to be the champion to every parent who dreams for their children and to every child who dreams for their future, i say these words to you tonight. i am with you. i will fight for you. and we will win for you. we will win. america we will make strong again. we will make america safe again

. we will make america great again. thank you and god bless you. thank you, mississippi. we love mississippi. god bless you. thank you. ♪

♪

>> today the american bar association's annual homeland security law institute considers the legal profession's role in the country's security. our live coverage begins 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later a palestinian member of the israeli knesset talks about israeli laws and the impact on palestinian citizens and arab knesset members. live from the arab center of washington, d.c. starting at 12:30 plm eastern, also on c-span 2.

the c-span radio app makes it easy to continue to follow the 2016 election wherever you are. it's free to download from the apple app store or google play. get audio coverage and up-to-the-minute schedule information from c-span radio and c-span television plus podcast times for our popular public affairs, book and history program. stay up to date on all the election coverage. c-span's radio app means you lways have c-span on the go. today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. the at noon eastern the archives marks the 100th anniversary of the national park service. at 3:00 plm hillary clinton campaigns in reno, nevada. and at 6:30 eastern candidates running for the positions in the teamster's union debate. coming up in 45 minutes, mike rind, national park service

deputy director of operations on the 100th anniversary of the agency. at 8:30 a.m. eastern michael cranish and mark fischer of "the washington post" on their new biography trump revealed. ♪ host: good morning. a live look at the lincoln memorial and the mall in washington, d.c. with the washington monument in the foreground and the u.s. capitol on this thursday, august 25. today marking a centennial anniversary. it was on this date 100 years ago president woodrow wilson signing a bill that created the national park service. today an estimated 20,000 employees, more than 200,000 volunteers, staffing america's 413 national parks, memorials, battlefields and historic sites. and la y