he enjoys having us around. i believe that despite his constant comments about fake news. it helps drive his message into the news of the day. it really allows them to do that. >> sunday night eight eastern on c-span.

good afternoon. it's wonderful to be here, ceo of the organization for international investment. i have a little over 200 companies into these are all firms that have made a deliberate decision to invest in the united states and employee americans here across the country almost 7 million americans get a paycheck. companies like japan-based leota, german, switzerland-based nestlé and burger king. these companies have a lot to do with the day-to-day existence of

the trains you take to work in the morning or the cars that you drive and even your after dinner drinks as well. in the u.s. workforce i think that we are almost to the point it is difficult to talk with her is a u.s. firm or a foreign fi firm. you've heard that distinguished career and he has a lot to offer so let's go ahead and get into it. mr. ambassador, today's conference is entitled to the treats don't matter.

what type of magnitude and importance of the u.s. eu relationship. >> thank you for the invitation. trade is the ultimate driver of wealth creation and productivi productivity. it is science that we know that it actually is a law with a comparative advantage. it could produce everything it needs it makes more sense to focus on those things you produce sufficiently and trade the rest. there's economic activity that continues to increase and i think this is board success

story or country that has grown prosperous and offered a better way of life to its citizens without trading so trade is absolutely an indispensable part of our economic life. and the transatlantic corridor talking about the relations is the single most important economic corridor in the world. ..

this is a massively important relationships in terms of trade and goods and services and perhaps more especially in terms of investment. >> we have the numbers and beyond the numbers of the importance of the relationship between the u.s. and the eu, but can you actually talk more about how sort of citizens of the world outside of those regions benefit from the strong relationship between the u.s. and the e.u. >> i think you have indicated the ways in which there is significant european investment here in the united states. we estimate that roughly about 15 million jobs are created across the atlantic between the

e.u. and the u.s., roughly divided between us, roughly the same number in europe, and it makes a huge difference, but the other regions also pen fit. i have often expressed regret at the american decision to withdraw from tpp. some people said that is an opportunity for europe. for user the success of the trans-pacific part in shership would have been official to europe. we are also negotiating in the asia-pacific region. when you increase economic activity, you suck in through the supply chain, you create new opportunities, you create new wealth, cob assumed are buying other products and americans don't just buy products from europe and we're not just going to bee product from the united states but whenow create spatial economic activity its spreads beyond the two partners in the trade relationship.

>> i helped form my organization in 1990. so have been involved in the sort of foreign direct investment issue area for almost 30 years now. but from 1990 until i think about 2015, we saw a general upward trajectory of support for globalization. a couple on hiccupped but around the world more and more wanting to embrace globalization and figure out a way in which to play the kind of game of that. over the last couple of years have seen a heightened skepticism of goal relationships -- global relationships and what do you think could be the implications if we standard kind of moving away from more and more connectivity between countries.

>> i think you're right there has been a growing criticism of globalization. i mean, it stems -- >> almost a bad word now. >> ism must admit i still use it in a positive, but you're right. a number of reasons for that, i think. probably the single biggest driver has been rising inequality. i think we have to acknowledge that for all the benefits that are market economy system has brought, if you look at the numbers, they're quite frightening in terms of the rise of inequality and the gap between the richest people in our societies and the least well off, and this is -- i don't think it's a direct result of globalization because i think it is more a question of pock policy -- public policy. i'm a big fran of trade but you need a -- trade is a disrupter. the places where you new job-creatinged are often not the same places they will be lost.

whether that's geographically or sectorally, so you need in order to have the political acceptablity but in terms of social justice youd in a public, policy, regional policy, government investment in regions which are paidly affected to help them through the transition. perhaps we have done slightly better than nat europe than you have in the united statesment the backlash in europe has been absolutely less than here. the other element social associated with globalization is the issue of immigration and a sense of culture identity which these two things tent to get mixed up. the necks and the issue of cultural identity. for me it's absolutely classic as i said in answer to your first question, it would be an act of enormous self-air. our societies were to kind of seek to close the borders, do less trade, trade is a driver of increased prosperity, both for

our countries and regions and also for the rest of the world and we should not forget the position of the least developed countries who desperately need trade opportunities in order to continue on their path from a low level of development to improved prosperity and welfare for their citizens. >> so, how does -- i think it's incumbent upon us that support and understand the benefits that open boredders can bring. how do we deal with some of he issues or help answer some of the underlying concerns that those that oppose trade have? order to keep moving in a positive direction on globalization? certainly income equality is part of it but that's not all driven by globalization, and maybe even less than some people might think. technological developments,

really causing disruption as well, and if we only focus on globalization as the possible cause for inequality, then the so-called solutions won't really solve some of these problems. >> well, i agree with you that stopping trade or trade barriers are a kind of false panacea to the problem. i do think -- but then we get into political territory -- i mean, i'm probably more certainly in american terms a left liberal, i think it's a strong role for government in public policy in counteracting the market deefficiencies or effects of a free market. in europe we talk about the social market economy not just the free market economy. that's important. you need public intervention to correct some of the distortions or the inequalities which would flow from the unbridled play of market forces.

but that brings you into tricky politics because very often people who are defending the global approach are also people who would defend a rather less say fair -- laissez-faire small government policy at home. that doesn't work. i if you want to promote globalization, open borders, free trade you need to address the consequence -- not so much in the consequences this the issues that arise in and around that, which is inequality, unemployment in certain regions, which will be certain sectors who will find themselves affected, and i think we need much more imaginative thinking, the traditional left wing response of state ownership or these things are fail, busted flushes, we need much more creativity about how to address those issues because if we don't we'll see on both side's therefore the atlantic a growing disenchantment with the economic and political process and people

will vet for people who have very bad alternative solutions. >> can you compare the u.s. and the e.u. in terms of how they're viewing globalization? so, here in the states, we've seen a rise of national -- economic nationalism is a better way to put it, and maybe some skepticism around multilateral trade agreements, more of a focus on bilateral relationships, agreements. can you compare and contrast what the environment is like in europe right now? how are american companies viewed there if there's operating there, versus foreign-owned companies here. i know i threw a lot of you so pick and choose. >> i have to try to unpack that. a lot of issues there. just a word about europe. i mean, trade is in our dna. i wouldn't want to say we

invented trade because maybe parts of the arab world or asian world would say they invented trade but we have been been tradeers. 28 countries in member states in the european union. you cannot drive more than a couple of hours in any direction in almost any country without crossing a frontier and without understanding you want to put barriers up between us i'll all be less well off. we went through a bumpier period on the trade front but have come through that and if you now look at our trade agenda, we have an agreement with a canada, upgrading the first generation free trade agreement. we'll -- agreement with mexico. we'll sign very comprehensive agreement with japan in the summer. the biggest free trade agreement

ever, representing nearly 30% of global gdp. we have already concluded if the singapore and vietnam and actively engaged with chile, and we'll open negotiations with australia and new zealand very shortly. so i think the momentary hiccup of people saying our trade deal is the way forward has actually turned around in europe, and when cecelia maelstrom, the trade negotiator, when she finish inside 2019, europe, ill all goes well will be at the center to the largest free trading networks the world has ever seen. that's the trajectory we're on. now, it can go wrong, get derailed, political problems so none -- all of this requires an enormous amount of work to continue the -- to persuade people of the benefits and

advantages of this trade opening. we, i think, are still supportersers of the multilaterl system but we have to admit that the negotiating arm of the wto is going through a difficult period, and we have to see how we can address that. finally you've point about how companies are perceived. american foreign direct investment, japan foreign direct investment, any foreign direct investment is always welcome because they bring jobs and opportunities, and i have the sense here -- hive been traveling around the country quite a lot. i was in south carolina recently where there's huge european investment, big bmw, massive bmw investment there. you go to port of charleston, you can see them exporting bmws to germany by the container. there's a very big italian investment which makes cables. i've been to mobile, alabama, where there's a big airbus

factory, and i sense these companies are all welcomed by their local communities. they bring economic activity. the bring training and jobs. so i think on both sides of the atlantic, people at the end of the day just want the same thing, decent job, an opportunity, they want a chance to earn a decent living and look at their families, and foreign direct investment is an important part of providing that open both sides of the atlantic. >> let's talk about the innovation, and how you see emerging technologies impacting cross-border trade. >> well, you touched on it's moment ago. i think the big thing coming at us all is the impact of technology on employment and on societal issues. i mean, you just take the single example of autonomous vehicles. aisle told dish don't know if the numbers are perfectly accurate but there are roughly 7 million people in america who earn their living driving

vehicles. the day we go to autonomous vehicles what happens to those 7 million people? that's one example. so, i am a huge fan of technology. i think we need this innovation and need this progress, but we have to -- again, it will require accompaniment with other measures or there will be a sort of luddite push back against it. the cross-border side of it, obviously data flows are hugely important, and we in europe are putting in place fairly rigorous legislation to ensure the complete free flow hover data within the european union and we also want in our trade deals to encourage -- to prevent blockages or geographical blocking 0 of dot to flows -- a big important but -- issues of privacy and security and those have to be addressed and

certainly in europe we address them not through trade dealed beaut means as we have with the united states, for example, the safe harbor agreement which guarantees the protection of personal data here when it's exported from europe. we'll have to find creative ways of managing these in order to allow the technology -- the benefits of the technology be unleashed because if we don't look after those speaks, which are legitimate concerns, then there will be a pushback from people saying they don't want to see this development. >> so we talked about trade agreements and we did talk about foreign direct investment. i think trade agreements, any country that has a robust trade agenda, to pursue more agreements whether they be bilateral or multilateral, become more competitive for cross-border investment. global companies want to be in countries that are globally connected because there are supply chains that go all across the world.

i think that when i -- i do think obviously working in this field for a long time, when a foreign company looks outside their home market and makes this very deliberate decision to invest in your market, it's a great sign of competitive strength and shouldn't be seen as a vulnerability but strength. the u.s. has lost its share of cross-border investment. in 2000 the u.s. attracted 37% of the world's cross-border investment and but 2016 we're at 24%. europe has stayed consistent. i i don't know if the u.s. will get ever gate back to 37% as the world as grown weapon had dipped down to in to 11, down to about 15% and have been able to get some of that back. one of the things i've heard from my members that impede u.s. competitiveness for cross-border

investment is -- has been a lack of a robust trade policy. right? because, again, you were talking about all the different agreements europe is pursuing, and that is likely to have pretty big impact on europe's ability to attract companies from outside of the market. why do you think -- europe is the countries in europe are among the u.s.' top investing countries. so why do you think european companies invest here? >> well, fritz and for most because you're a large market. you're 350 million people and you're one of the wealthiest markets in the world, after europe. we're probably the wealthiest, we're 500 million people. you're 350. so, people want to be close to the market. that's they basic law of investment. makes sense to invest here and create stuff here. i just noticed -- i don't want

to blind people with science because numbers can mean anything but affiliate sales here in europe of our companies amount to about 2.4 trillion, which is many multiples at what we actually export to the united states. the same is true by the way for europe. your companies -- your affiliates sales in europe are nearly $3.1 trillion, which, again, is bigger than all of your expert exports to the relevant e rest of the world. ours is an investment relationship, even more than a trade relationship. also a trade relationship and also an investment relationship, and i think not were standing the sort of -- not withstanding the hoise in the system, his is a very profitable playing for companies to invest and do business in and you will severally see european companies continuing to come here. all kind of reasons. you're a big market. it's a dynamic market, a creative and -- you have certain

advantages over europe in terms of the dynamism of this economy and rigidities of our -- you--i still think this country will remain a very attractive peninsulas for doing business. now economies booming, maybe bit too much. i think -- i don't get the impression talking to european companies there's any sense of not wishing to continue to invest here. >> it that thing? booming too much? >> well, i mean, that's my sort of academic economist -- yeah, i think you can overheat an economy, yes, you can, we have -- we have all done it. tend to have emphasize the cycles too much. we'd love to smooth them out but the nature of economics you have a boom and then a downturn. you try to make sure the boom isn't too big to the bust isn't

to deep and that's the challenge of economic policy, economic policy has been remarkly well-managed in country since the crisis and you're getting the benefit of that now, and rightly so. >> absolutely. you know, the size of our market definitely from my perspective, definitely drives investment but as you were just giving an example before, bmws are being exported from the u.s. to germany. so, actually, americans at international companies in the united states produce close to a quarter of all of our u.s. exports. i think that's very counterintuitive, and one thing that we're urging in this environment of skepticism on global connection as you view the relationship between the u.s. and other donees there, view it not from a trade perspective, whether there's a deficit or surplus, because there's so many factors, foreign

direct investment is part of that and all the numbers you just talked about before, fall into that, right? so, while there are -- there is a lot of i think acceptance and support for greenfield investment in the united states, we do see still concerns about cross-border mna and the concernses that happened with cross-border mna come tub in the trade space in the mna space in terms of rules that sort of look at acquisitions as well as in the tax base. right? so, in any market, the predominant vehicle for cross-border investment is through mna, rather than greenfield investment. i wonder if you could speak to any of that.

>> the think looking at trade relations in terms of deficits and surpluses can be extremely misleading. a few of you may have heard me tell my only trade joke, of the trade minister sent to geneva and asked to make a toast at a dinner and says i'd like to make a toast to the moment when we all have trade surpluses. nobody is laughing but there aren't any economists. er everybody is saying what's wrong with nat? we all have to be trading with mars. but i think these deficits and surpluses are more onthan not the result of macroeconomic factors than trade factor. >> can you explain that? >> of course. if you're buying loot from a country and can't sell to them, you can say that's -- the deficit is the result of unfather trading practices. we can thing think of can is

where practices are not fair trade practices we share the criticisms made by this administration about china and we are willing and interested in working with this administration on trying to get china to address some of those issues. but in general, it's reciprocity of opportunity, not reciprocity of outcome, and you don't need -- if you look at your trading relationship with a country, purely in terms of deficits and surplus, you're probably missing the picture. depends' when thy expert. we have a massive deficit with saudi arabia because they sell oil and we can't produce. if you have a high propensity to consume in your economy, which you do in the united states, you're inevitably going to suck in imports and that's a result of tax reform is to increase imports because you're putting more money in people's pockets and they ten to consume inch germany, people tend to save a higher proportion of their

differ poseable income and that's just their way of doing it. so, i think very often macthrow economic factors are more important. on the issue of mergers and acquisitions and so forth, i agree with you. i think we -- this is an important way in which our companies can expand and investment in our respective jurisdictions. we have certain rules. we have competition rules, which can be an issue. i think we're all a bit concerned about inequality of opportunity in chinese investment. it is not as easy at all for european or american companies to invest in china as it is for chinese companies to invest in europe or in the united states. by the way don't think we should be dish mean issue think we should welcome that investment, but it should be a two-way street. i think that's one of the things we would certainly want to address in talking to our chinese friends about how to

make it's more level playing field for reciprocal investment. >> couldn't agree with you more. i recently had the opportunity to visit a loreal facility in arkansas and that facility certained as a maybelline factory, and loreal acquired it and now it this largest manufacturing cosmetic manufacturing facility in the world, in arkansas. owned bay french company. and that acquisition was not a vulnerability. loreal pumped a lot of money into it and now it's serving not just the u.s. economy, all tow we do love our cost met stick co-cosmetics but it's serving the world as well. a really great factory to look at. one thing people think about with foreign investment is direct jobs.

close to 7 million americans work for foreign-owned companies. sometimes they're not as much understood about the other things other than capital and direct jobs they bring. one time i visited a member of congress who is the largest employer in his district, was a japan owned company and he said we love the jobs but they just don't do anything for the community. they are there just for the short-term, and i called this company and they sent me ten pages of what they do in the community. not just in terms of general sort of csr type of work, but also work force development. can you speak to any of the sort of programs cutting edge programs that some european companies have brought to the u.s. in terms of work force training? i think it's counterintuitive for a foreign couple to train the u.s. for jobs for tomorrow. >> you're absolutely right.

i live in japan in the eights in and some of the discussions we are having we china now we were having win japan back then and people were required that japan would take over the world. unfortunately now we re great they didn't. one thing was japanese investment and japanese investment in the auto industry actually saved the european auto industry. not only did they come over and build their cars and, by the way, work with the suppliers and the supply chain to improve techniques which back in the 80s were little heard of, just in time production, low in zero inven store and also quality control of the suppliers which then became a benefit to the european car manufacturers, but also the european car manufacturers looked over their shoulder and saw this is how the japan are doing and it upped them gary. now car manufacturing is a very healthy industry and europe and we benefit from that japanese investment. the same is true here. the two example is site are the one -- two i already mentioned. the airbus facility in mobile, which i mean invested heavily --

i was there a year ago to watch them jetblue to take delivery of the first u.s., built airbus. with which a large proportion of airbus planes built in europe are actually made with american parts, something which people forget. just as a lot of boeing produce heeder are made with european parts. so both of them wish to be flagship european or flagship american companies. actually they're both global companies but that's for another day. the airbus people trained completely all the work force because they had none of the skills needed there to work with this. i talked to the two engineers who were there and basically worked in generating this, and there was the whole parts and suppliers network that they built up around it and then some of the people who worked in airbus were then going to go and work the parts suppliers or set up their own facilities to supply parts to airbus or to supply services. so there's a whole kind of out

of this sing fall silt of just building anoa -- assembling an airplane, there's a whole tissue are economic activity including on the skills side. their same is true of bmw in south carolina. their facility, which is one of the biggest, but the german kind of apprenticeship training scheme, this has had an impact on work with the local schools and local technical facilities -- technical teaching facilities and they are a very welcomed part of the community, giving -- of course they're making money. let's be honest. that's what companies do. they're not social -- not not for frost organizations but they're making money and also spreading a lot of new skills, new knowledge, and other generating other economic activity in the region, which is hugely beneficial. >> seem so glad you mentioned apprenticeship programs of with

our european based companies and other candidate from around the world, bringing that model to the united states and it's not just happening in the advanced manufacturing space, although certainly dominates. zurich insurance what been in the u.s. for more than 100 years, has an apprenticeship program, a white collar apprenticeship program, providing opportunities whether it's a mom who stayed home were kids or folks that didn't go to a full four-year college, to get into the insurance space. they've had great success out in illinois with that program, and i've also seen that in other service sectors as well. so we think of apprenticeships mostfully advanced manufacturing but there's a lot in services as well. we have just sort of thinking about the trading relationship, we focused a lot of the trade of goods. can you speak a little bit about the importance before of the trait of services between the

u.s. and the e.u.? >> services is -- accounts for about 75% of our economic activity. europe is a hugely services services-driven economy. of course, it's -- i mean, we have trade in services. it's a complicated issue. having negotiated this in trade deals, putting the services chapter in a trade deal is always the most difficult because we're very good at dealing with goods, because it's tariffs or even some regulatory issues because you can kind of fix it. services takes you into more complex territory, and we're still looking in geneva at the trade and services agreement which could be a sort of plural lateral negotiation. is all linked because there's a big link between trade in

services and that's a laing between trade and goods and services because they frkly -- one sort of pulls the other along, and i think services is certainly one of those things where we can do a lot more together but i -- it's very much for me also linked to the investment agenda because very often that's the best way in which you can actually export a service. >> i think it's important. again, in trade, we're always focused on goods. we're not thinking about the cross-border investment or the trade of services so it's really i think very helpful to provide that much more fuller picture about the relationships certainly between the u.s. and e.u. let's talk about tax. last year you know that the u.s. -- the administration and congress passed really historic tax legislation, significantly lowered the rate from 35% to 21%, but also had major changes

in the international area, and i think a lot of people are wondering how will this impact multinational companies? will it disrupt cross-border investment? will companies start to sort of change around some of their supply chains? what sort of impact do you see or have you heard -- because we haven't seen a lot yet but just as companies begin to get their arms around these sort of changes, how do you see the new law impacting? >> well, it's a bit like the answer about the french revolution, it's too soon to tell. think we need -- we are actually -- firstly, we follow this whole debate. it's not a secret we had some concerns about certain aspects of the new tax measure which we felt could be discriminatory,

some questioned wto compatible but we want to understand what is happening. we want to understand how this legislation is actually going to work because as we were discussing earlier, in your wonderful legislative system here in the united states you kind of start with a big picture and work down to what you call technical direction and then treasury have to kind of interpret it also. we canal say how this will impact companies and we'll be talking to european countries to find out in real terms what this means for. the. that's the mose important thing. there of course a conceptual wto capacitiability issue which we'll look at as is our obligation, but i think our first thing is how this is going to work is? it going to have adverse effects or unfair effects on european companies who invested here and

when we have the information we'll engage in a dialogue with tress troy see if the are problems, whether they can be iron out in the margin of discretion given to the executive. so we have some concerns, but we are sort of waiting to see how our companies interpret this, how it impacts on them, and then we'll see if there are wives addressing problems without turning this into a confrontation because we don't want to. we understand how important this legislation is to the administration and to congress. but we are keeping a very close eye on it. >> one thing i've been a little bit concerned about over the last couple of year is this tit-for-tat between the u.s. and europe in terms of tax treatment of nonhome-grown companies. we saw a little of that back anding for over the year. from from our organization's perspective we came out in support of the legs. we feel there were enough changes made over the very fast 52-day sprinted, but as you

said, wait and see how everything sort of shapes up once we have more certainty around a lot of the issues that are still ambiguous right now that treasury is going to look at. >> i think we -- going back to your earlier point about globalization issue think one of the things that -- i mean i don't know how much people in sort of bars and cav fires europe sort of -- cafes of europe actively discuss this stuff but i think people get the a lot of companies are making a lot of money and not paying tax anywhere, and this doesn't seem fair, and so i think we collectively, the u.s., the e.u., the oecg world, we have an important debate about that, about how we sort of aggressive tax planning of certain multinational companies who seem to be able to benefit from a sort of playing us all off one against the other and basically

paying very little tax anywhere. this fuels the debate about inequality, about the injustice of the system and the fact that globalization benefits only the wealthiest and does not trickle down to ordinary people. so, i think that's a conversation we're having. we don't always agree but i think it's an important conversation because i think global tax reform and working together to avoid the worst aspects of aggressive tax evasion or avoidance by multimultinational company is a common problem. >> there's more transparency in the pace and understanding where ask how the companies are paying taxes and having the public respond rather than just immediately government's weighing in. sometimes can have an impact on the company's behavior. and i think that certainly the first start is just transparency. so i'm getting the high sign

that maybe we have -- need to open it up right now. could sit here and talk to you for a long time. it's been very interesting. open it up for questions to the audience. do you have a mic? yes. >> we'll take some questions off twitter first. >> great. >> you recognize those who might be live streaming in from c-span. >> great. >> so the first question off twitter is in terms of messaging, how do you think professionals that reframe globalization so it's viewed as a positive concept. >> i don't -- i mean issue don't see any alternative simply trying to explain how it works, to debunk the myths, which are that -- i mean, the myth is that people are stealing our jobs or

that this is all unfair ex-we're losers from this situation. i think we have just been explaining the mutual benefits to the u.s. and to e.u. of our cross-investment and trading relationship, but it's also true with the developing country as well. 300 people -- 300 million people have been lift out of poverty in china, and comment on the political system or the human rights in china, but those people are now consumers. and they're purchasing. so, i think that the critical opinion is that we have to explain to people that there is no way forward that does not involve creating more wealth and sharing it more equally across the world. how we as individual countries respond to the challenges which that throws up -- it does throw up challenge. we should not hide that. but that's a national policy response. you can have more progressive tax system. you can have higher tacks to pay

for more public services or lower taxes and you can choosing not to have that. that's a political choice in our own political space. we in europe clearly are very attached to a model of social justice and social welfare, universal health care, universal access to education, these underpin our system. i'm not saying it's dish think it's the best system for us you have different model, but i think the key point is to drive home that actually we are benefiting from this globalized exchanges and it gives us greater margin of maneuver to make policy choices at home than would otherwise be the case. >> i was really pleased -- i don't know how many people watched the super bowl. i guess a good portion of the crowd here. was pleased to see so many dish know of my members, i looked a anheuser-busch, daimler and others showing commercials that tease out their impact on the u.s., not just in terms of jobs

but in terms of their corporate social responsibility and how they really are a part of the communities in which they sustain ably operate. there are sticks but i was really pleased and again over the last almost 3 years every been wife, these companies how they've been more forth coming in sharing what they're doing in communities so that people have a better understanding so that perhaps i won't have that same conversation with a congressman that doesn't know the ten pages of work that the company is doing in their community. that goes beyond just the pure economics. >> and we'll take one more off twitter. in order to protect free trade, both in the u.s. and the e.u., do you think government or corporations should take on retraining efforts to support those impacts by he byproducts of globalization and trade?

>> yes. i mean, i think the skills -- the skills debates probably -- i mean, i used to deal with this stuff in the early '90s when i was responsible, along with many others, creating a program in europe which ensure all students spend one year in another country at university. this mom program about trying to better address the skills gap. back then in the early '90s it was all about skills. still all about skills. we have so many job vacancies and people -- we cannot find the people to fill them. we have not found the way of training people and educating people to do the jobs that industry actually needs them to do and where those jobs are to be found. we are unfortunately still producing people who don't have the necessary skills and that's one reason which drivers immigration, because you need to get the skills from elsewhere, and so this -- the education,

training, skills, challenge is still the greatest alcohol felony my view facing news europe and facing you knee it's and going to become more acute because of technology and the huge changes in he way of work and the nature of work coming at us with technological changes. so this is the critical issue. as a european you absolutely need that to be traced by public policy and by governments. americaneds may put more emphasis on the role of corporation's private sector. you actually need both. >> you touched on that a lot of companies already doing it. they're trying reach out to whether it be high schools, community colleges, i know that in south carolina, bmw and michelin are reaching empty elementary school levels to get kids interested in education. nor immediates to be done and

that critical partnership between the private sector and government just can't be understated. >> now i'll open it up to the audience in case anyone physically present would like to ask any questions of the ambassador. so if you do, just please raid your hand and i'll pass the mic over to you. >> i wanted to return to your earlier discussion about free trade in less developed countries. how can the e.u. ensure that everyone within the union benefits equally from trade. >> i mean i don't think everybody does benefit equally from trade. i think if you start to say that, it's already sending people a falsehood. collectively we benefit from

trade but there are redistributive issues if you want to deal with the consequences some peel are negatively impacted by trade and we should not refuse to recognize there will be in companies be put of our business by free trade deals because they will not be competitive, and you can argue that maintaining those noise existence through protectionist measures is not viable in the long-term, which is argue. but the fact is you have to address what happens to that company and that region or those people and that for me is why i think the intervention of public policy is absolutely indispensable to a company. the inevitable churning which trade brings earnings that'ses is globally mothtive, in term odd net creation of wealth. you mentioned least developed countries. it's note the point of your question but i just remind people, it's vitally important, trade is a huge way of allowing the least developed countries to

become more old and to build a better future for themselves. i if we don't give theming ageny so -- access to our markets that it willcracy other problems so we have to understand that trade is also a responsible to the need for the least e least development or the develop organize emerging countries of the world to follow their own path of greater prosperity and greater well-being for their citizens and that's also a public good for us because without that, we will suffer particularly -- i mean, europe with our gee ago graphy, sitting on top of africa and the middle east, if they're not able to dole their own economies and create job saturday a better prospect of life for. they start walking towards europe and that's an even bigger problem than letting in their

goods. >> thank you talk about the non -- can you talk about the nonlegal barriers, the foreign takeover in germany you have the supervisory and management dual government sim. a tameover of daimler would be impossible and the benefit of airbus and creating jobs but if it wasn't for the subsidize with airbus would have douglas aircraft and lockheed so free trade is -- foretakeovers is not talked about. you talk about china and national security, but, for instance, alcatel in france was able to buy bell labs. i don't think paris would have allowed an american company to take over such a significant french company that did major research. thank you. >> i just think you're wrong.

with respect -- i mean, you say the subsidies of airbus. what about suck diss of boeing. we both have our wto cases. they're two subsidized air companies because you actually can't build pick aircraft without some form of state subsidy boeing is no exception. don't think that was to detriment of other players. i think the -- i mean you can -- i'm not going to comment on pick cases because i don't necessarily have the facts at misdisposal but i think american companies do invest in europe, do purchase companies in europe. there are takeovers. so i mean i think it's something of a myth to say it's no problem for europeans to take over american companies but very difficult for american companies to take -- i just don't actually think that's true objectively to be very frank with you. >> i would just add, if i could, also respectfully, that if there are bad policies around the world, as the just dish don't

want to emulate them so set eight side whether something is true or not, if another country is putting up barriers, that's not something we want to emulate. just gave a sort of an off the cuff example of loreal's acquisition of maybelline, which many people would think was cultural icon, and they've done a fantastic job of e -- over there and that's in a variety of different spaceses. acquisitions can bring so much, not just infusion of capital, but the things we talk about before, can bring in new technologies, new management system, a way to not just save a failing company but to even put more juice in a company that is doing well. so an acquisition should not be seen as a vulnerability. i just offer that up. >> i think we'll have time for two more questions. just take that one in the front row.

>> ambassador, thank you, sir, for coming. this is a little bit out of what we have been talking about today. what are your thoughts bet bricksity? is it too late for the uk? >> look, i am european civil servant and also irish. think -- i look at brexit with great sadness bus i thick it's a pity that e.u. nighted kingdom would decide to leave and i think it's a mistake for them, but that's not for me to say. it's for them to judge '. the made their choice. i think it's sad for the european union if think the union without the unite kingdom will be somewhat diminished. we'll move on and still be 27 countries and the third largest -- one of the the three largest economies in the world but we lose something by the departure of the unite kingdom.

implicit in your question is it too late, all this talk that it's some speculation in press about second referendum or reversal of the decision. i have no idea. there is a very difficult domestic debate in the uk. they're trying figure out what brexit means to be very frank. think many people who voted for the leave side had no clear idea of the implications of -- and the complex terrify that would mean. that it is emerging almost every day. the growing complexity of psychiatric extricating the unites kingdom from involvement in the european union and the business cycle and commercial and other links that there are, and unraveling this is a gigantic task and people are waking up to the complexity of that. i will this lead to a rethink? i have no idea. this is a domestic british debate. i wish them well. personally i would be delighted

if they're changed their mine but i'm not holding my breath. >> thank you, ambassador, fog were here today. just have a brief question. we all know u.s. president were draw from the tpp last jeer and tpp is going ahead without the u.s. and speculation u.s. might be were drawing from nafta. what does that mean for the eu economy in the broad sense. >> well, i mean, i think i said earlier that we thought the conclusion of tpp was a positive. we wished it will and hopes it would enter into force. it's a shame the u.s. is for the moment at least not going to be party 0 that. i'm delight that the 11 are going ahead because that will we to our benefit and also negotiating with almost all the countries tpp. we're actually negotiating agreements of our own, so i think all of this will add to

the economic activity to the benefit of the region and to benefit certainly of europe. on nafta to go back to the point we were discussing earlier and in response to the question from twitter, as an economist, as a trade specialist, as one who just looks from the outside, to me, for the u.s., nafta has been a success. i may be the only person in america willing to say that's because everyone else seems to feel obliged to -- to me it has been a success. it has certainly brought problems and challenges within the existing arrange.s of nafta that could be revisited. it's an old agreement at this point, but to me it's been a benefit. i personally can't understand why anyone, the canadian the mexican's americans, would want to withdraw from that. maybe improve it. you address some problems which are there. but i mean, that's my view, and my view counts for nothing in

this. so, i -- but you see i come back to my point that it has almost gone into this sort of commonplace language that we all can agree, these trade deals have all been very bad. no, actually, they haven't. by and large they've been pretty good, and they have brought huge benefits to us and all have improved our economies and given us more money to tax and have a better public services. for me i really -- the starting point in the debate about trade is to stop from -- i will not accept the argument that by and large trade deals have been negative. they have been usually positive. they have not always been as positive as we hopes and sometimes there have been problems and you need to correct that and there are consequences which need to be addressed through public policy or tax policy or investment or training policy. but the net result of these trade deals is to increase economic welfare and not just of the one percent but for all of

us. so, i -- that's my view about nafta. you'll have to have that debate here and the negotiations are ongoing and i sincerery hope that the negotiations can end successfully. you can have an upgrade of nafta and it can continue to bring the benefits to the three north american economies which i believe it has until now. >> well, on that note, you want to interject? >> ditto. >> i think that's an excellent note to end on. i really don't want to take up anymore of your time. appreciate they took the time out of their extremely busy days to share, like, really their truly experts in the field. i personal i enjoyed this discussion and they deserve an excellent round of applause. [applause]

>> jew can wash more or this flee trade conference online at c-span.org where you will also find c-span scheduling information. use urgent rated video clips and thousands of hours of public affairs programming to stream from the c-span video library. >> saturday, american history tv on c-span3 is live beginning at 9:00 a.m. easterly from the museum of the bible in washington, dc, with a symposium of historians exploring the bible and the found offering america. speakers include baylor university history professor thomas kidd, author of benjamin

franklin, the religious life of a founding father. american university public affairs professor, danielle drosbach, author of reading the bible with the founding fathers, and the vanderbilt university divinity professor, james birdie author of sacred scripture, the bible and the american revolution, washington live on saturday morning an american history tv on c-span3. >> next weekend, the c-span cities tour takes you to lynchburg, virginia. with the happen of come cast we'll explore the rich literary scene and historic sites. watch next weekend, begins at 5:00 p.m. eastern on become book tv on c-span 2 and on sunday on american history tv on c-span3. working with cable affiliates as we explore america. >> the nex r