Another one, give the people and another one or two minutes to sort of come in before we start the next panel, but our intent is to start with the next 90 seconds. So i am one of the conference chairs for the 2018 policy conference. I would like to start off by thanking those who have just arrived and thinking those also who have been with us from this morning or just arrived from the eu investors panel, i think this next panel really is in some respect at the heart of the trade subject. Financial services is integral to our everyday lives and to the modern economy. Every modern economy lies on Financial Services. Its also, in many respects a good kind of like the deduction that we dont often think about how crosses borders. We just assume that when we go to atms will take money out of the bank and we assume that we will have the same service only go on vacation to other countries as well so theres an infrastructure in place that supports a very complicated global web of services but its not one that we engage with in everyday discussions but its a very important one for the Financial Services is incredibly important and thats not only because of the size of goods and services that cross are natural borders. Its also one that in recent years has become much more important to the global, how do you regulate this industry whats the best way to do so, how do we make sure the gains are shared by everyone and that it contributes positive lead towards economies in which it resides. I think we have a next line panel to sort of tackle these discussions and also just the larger discussion and fills philosophical sense. Moderating the panel will be necklace he cofounded the think tank in brussels in 2002 and he joined the Pearson Institute in 2009. He is currently a senior fellow. His research is primarily the Financial Systems and Financial Services policies and he frequently briefs senior policy officials in europe, the United States and asia and has had elementary hearings in member states. Has been a financial policy expert in the court of auditors and parliament, International Monetary fund and the world bank. A lot of organizations trust his judgment. Next, we have robert will start off by saying you cannot trust my judgment because hes also my current professor. Bob is a highly respected lawyer with regards. [inaudible] he had previously served in senior positions in white house and congress and he is skilled in international and substantial economy of the Global Economy. He brings 15 years of private sector experience to solve difficult problems in his widely seen as one of the most savvy and effective attorneys helping people in washington. Prior to joining in 2001 he served in the Clinton White house, first as a special assistant to the president with the National Security council and National Economic council and then as a project where he oversaw u. S. 300 billion budge budget. Since then he focused his time on special focus in international divisions. Next we have frank who advises clients on International Trade law, trade policy, trade legislation and negotiations. He is chair of the India Practice Group and the Latin American Task force. He handles matters frequently before the u. S. Trade representative, other executive trade agencies, u. S. InterNational Trade commission , custom services, foreign sovereigns and nationals. So again, someone who really does know the needs of both governments and corporations in respect to the Global Economy and trade. Next we have douglas who works in the Financial Division within structured finance department where he underwrites loans for project financial deals. Prior to joining this, he spent time working as a policy Division Structures and finance departments. He previously worked at Morgan Stanley in new york as a fellow member of the nextgeneration counsel sr 21, Nonprofit Research group and has hold a masters in arts in International Relations at johns hopkins. Finally, he was a senior legal counsel, a Belgian National who holds degrees in both laws and business ministration. Prior to working he worked for the European Central bank and now he works on financial policy. With that i will leave it to the people with much more impressive resume for me we can start conversation. Take it so much. It was indeed an impressive setting of the scene for this panel. We are going to talk about trade and investment and financial relation that is the distinctive attribute of this panel going on beyond the. Trade and extending good. Theres a lot of jargon in this area, there are lots of acronyms and specialized knowledge. I encourage her panelists to go into the weeds to a certain extent, but to explain for the audience if you use an acronym, explain it in this kind of thing but i dont think we should shy away from going into some of the technical technical stuff. Without further knowledge for me, lets go first or panelists and ill ask each of them to make brief introductory statements and ill take it from there. Thank you necklace. I wanted to begin by asking one very important questions. Where is the Global Economy heading . What path are we on . Are we on the path where there will be greater nationalistic trade policies, a decline in embrace of international institutions, a path that is more characterized by the policies of president tromp and brexit or are we in a path where for several years here we may be through that. But we will then return to the postworld war ii path that evidenced greater globalism, gradual embrace of international institutions, which of those paths are we on . Thats what id like to begin to talk about today. Before i do that, let me first of all thank georgetown for putting this together. Michael has done a great job, he has helped and a special shout out to leslie efforts of georgetown who has been my guiding shepherd as ive done my teaching there. I really appreciate that. Its go back to this question, which path are we on . All of us like to think we live in a bit of a special era and that were at a big Inflection Point. Let me begin by giving the contrary view and the position that maybe this isnt particular Inflection Point. They have done studies of what is the political aftermath in countries after you have a financial crisis. They went back and looked, going back to the 1800s and looked at 60 developed countries and examples of what happened politically in those countries after you had a financial crisis. They found a very clear pattern. Four things happen. It takes about eight years for country to get out of the economic effects of the financial crisis. Those are the eight years weve just been through with the election of president tromp. Two, son increase in most countries of far right politics. Think populism as well. Three, you saw a distinct challenging of the distinct political parties. Varney sanders challenging the Democratic Party and donald trump challenging the republican party. Four, you son increase in confrontational politics. Weve seen that as well. Now, after that eight years is over, gradually those effects dissipate and things go back to a little bit more the way they were before. So, if you believe that pattern, then this is a speedbump, we change things but we eventually return to that. Thats one point of view. The second way to look at it is that this isnt just speedbump but it is more of an Inflection Point and there are unresolved tensions in the Global Economy that we need to think about. What do we do about middle american, middle income workers in developed countries and their capacity to compete and have good livings, given low wage workers in emerging markets and the rise of automation . Thats an unresolved issue. That will not resolve itself within the eight year time period. What about immigration and the pressures that causes . Good and bad, but they are absorbing greater immigrant populations. Not likely to be true resolved in eight years. I would also throw global architecture. We are changing into a world in which the Power Centers tend to be the United States and china, yet we have a g20 that is still built a little bit where you get a sense that the derivative of the g7 and a world war ii structure and we have other structures that probably need to be realigned to the kind of world that is shaping up. History has a tendency to work out those unresolved problems and cause Inflection Points and cause difference of approaches and so which one of those are we in . Im not sure we know the exact answer, but it has enormous implications for the Financial Services area. Financial services, traditionally has not been something that is most affected by trade negotiations, and in fact thats been handled by the Treasury Department, its a bureaucratic thing, but more importantly, probably what made the greater difference in investment which is what ill focus on is more what i would call competitive reform, that emerging markets needed to reform and liberalize investment in order to get Foreign Investments and create jobs for the people. Thats a much greater impact of the last decade than trade negotiation. If this construct of globalization opens and changes, what does it mean for that dynamic. Thats a big deal in this area. The second thing i would point out is just what happens to the question of using an intersection between National Security and Foreign Investment. In this country we have a committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Its a process that our government uses to review Foreign Investment into the country that could affect National Security negatively and block investments that need to be done and all for them and so forth. Many of you are probably familiar with it. The trumpet ministration has been very difficult in terms of approving investments by Chinese Companies that might touch in these areas and that would likely continue for some time. Other countries are beginning to use this mechanism, not only to block Foreign Investment, but maybe as a trade tool to block investments in other countries from gaining power. To what extent do those mechanisms start to become a tool of trade and investment policy and not as much National Security or do the to get blurred. Thats an issue that needs to be addressed. With that, maybe we can talk about that a little bit more in questionandanswer but i wanted to throw out those large ideas to kick this off. Thank you. Thank you for having me here. Ive really piqued my curiosity about the history of trade negotiations. Im reading an interesting book called classical commerce which is the First Comprehensive history of u. S. Trade policy going back to the founding of the country. It strikes a couple themes that bob touched on, but the notion that trade policy and Monetary Policy are related is reflected on what has happened historically when the u. S. Economy has been threatened by International Developments that really have more to do with Exchange Rate fluctuation that have to do with monetary and fiscal policy, the reaction many times by congress and then by the president of the administration is straight legislation which really doesnt fix the underlying problem. That sets the stage for where we are now in addressing bobs question is the sum multilateral world or unilateral world. I think we all share some concerns about where the u. S. Is heading on trade policy. You may not know that every president is required to file basically an annual report on trade. Its a National Trade agenda, the latest one is due in less than three weeks on march 1, but president tromp filed his report last year, he talked about a couple things that probably shouldnt surprise you, but what struck me most was a discussion where he talked about National Sovereignty always takes precedence over trade policy. To me that means that this is an administration that is going to look to implement policies on a unilateral basis and not on a multilateral basis. If you look at what happened last year, its very clear that the president likes to sign executive orders. Theres lots of opportunit Photo Opportunities of him signing those and initiating studies, bringing complaints, bringing trade complaints that dont require an adjudicative determination by an independent body like the International Trade commission, but can be done by the president. These are 232 investigations. To me it sets a troubling president because i worry that if the u. S. Were to lose, and they happen they will, i could see this administration saying we werent elected by International Bureaucrats in geneva, we were elected by people of the United States and protecting their jobs so if you say we violated the wcl, do whatever you want, im not change anything. That can be the beginning of a very dangerous process and trade policy. So, let me briefly go over, in the short term i have, some of the developments on trade negotiations. Bob talked about nafta and some of the other agreements. First of all the regulation from dodd frank from 2010 set the framework and they talked about the need for some sort of regulatory harmonization. Bob is right, the Financial Services and Financial Regulations really arent the primary topic of trade negotiations. Whether its a nafta or tpp. They are done separately through treasury and other agencies, but, i will point out something spread nafta, where you know we are renegotiating, u. S. Has a big competitive advantage in Financial Services print 4. 3 billion surplus in Financial Services with canada, 1. 1 surplus with mexico. With respect to the tpp that youve heard about, we now have the tpp 11, president tromp withdrew from that Transpacific Partnership agreement. When he withdrew there were a number of reservations taken off the table because they were in the insistence of the United States, very quickly on Financial Services, they are about to sign this agreement very soon, but there are commitments with respect to Financial Services regarding relating Financial Institutions and investor and investment crossborder trade in services will also be addressed in the tpp. Finally, there is something called the t tip which i think is still alive. The u. S. European trade agreement, im sure he address that very quickly, one of the big issues, and it may come back was regulatory course coherence, why dont we make standards and regulations the same between countries, in this case between the eu and the United States. The big banks and wall street put together a big pool of money to launch a campaign that said this is a great idea, we are all in favor of regulatory coherence on Financial Services and what they really meant was, here is our opportunity to water down dodd frank. We are going to add regulatory coherence with the europeans and therefore all of these restrictions that we hated, we have an international basis for getting rid of. The democrats responded and said there is no way you are going to dilute dodd frank because t tip is in limbo, we will wait to see how that develops but i think its an important process to examine as you look at the trade and Financial Services. Today is my five minutes . Okay. Very quickly on brexit, i know you talked about it before there are some interesting Financial Services issued in the only thing i would mention very quickly is that just today the commission we least, and i havent seen these notices, but notices to the Financial Services stakeholders, highlighting the implications of brexit in the following areas, financial instruments, banking and payment services, post rate Financial Services, asset management, pet and rating agencies, insurance, reinsurance and statutory audits. All of that available beginning today at the European Commission which will allow stakeholders to comment