Is. It is to propose in preparing for future conflicts we should not be preoccupied with fighting the last one, which brings me, finally, to the real risks that the eu proposes to security which is obviously closely tied to American Security. The two issues that are fuelling are fairly simple ones, that we understand pretty well on this side of the pond, Economic Security and immigration. While are predicting Economic Disaster for Great Britain, the reality is that while there will certainly be repercussions, the only certain disaster would be remaining in the eu, which is turning out to be nothing more or less than an economic suicide packed for its members. If the United States can salvage one independent strong economic partner from the eu, we might consider that an opportunity rather than a calamity. And then there is immigration, the eu has been an active component that has been enabled from the middle east that have resulted in a significant radical islam problem on the continent. Member nations who have recognized this issue and elected conservative governments pledging to counter such as poland, have been vilified. But the fact of the matter is that this is a significant problem, probably the most significant Security Threat that europe currently faces. And given the eus policies, individual countries have an obligation to their citizens to confront it. The United States is certainly benefited from collective european institutions such as nato. But the purpose of nato was never to dissolve the individual nations states into one but rather to provide them a venue for communication and cooperation. Moving forward, therefore, that might be the more productive model for the eu as in its current in carnation i believe it poses greater risks than it promises security and i dont blame the british friends for having strong thoughts so i await the out come for the june 23rd vote with great interest, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you victoria. Our next speaker will be dr. Ted broman. He studies under an glow american relations, u. S. And british relations with European Union, the world and International Organizations as treaties as Senior Research fellow here in the Heritage Foundation center for freedom. He joined heritage in 2008 previously served nine years as associate director of Yale UniversitysInternational Security studies a center dedicated to the study and teaching of diplomatic history and grand strategy. He was lecturer in history and from 2004 an International Affairs for massive arts program. Numerous u. S. And international publications. He received his doctorate in history in 1999 from yale. His thesis on britains first application to the European Economic community which is very relevant to the discussion were having today. The dissertation price from the american Political Science associations british politics group. He also holds two masters degrees in history from yale as well as a bachelor of arts degree from iowas college. Okay. Thank you very much. Luke. Its a pleasure to be here to talk for once about the subject of my dissertation research, which this is a thing to do and ive waited 25 things to do. Our history is relevant. Go by your copies now where theyre available. No. Im not going to talk about my dissertation. What is it im going to do is provide historical overview of american policy towards europe, talk a little bit about particularly the cold war era and a way that the eu for a while, they the predecessor, really, the community that theyre referring to. The eec as it use to be called the way those were for a while, part but only part of the cold war strategy. What happened at the end of the cold war and how the train ran off the tracks. So let me just start off by saying that since the end of world war ii, u. S. Policy towards europe has drifted, really without a lot of deliberate thought very far from its original premises in the late 1940s. That drift really accelerated at the end of the cold war. At the same time, europe itself is changed out of all recognition and its my contention today that if we want to get back to proper policies we need to understand some history, understand u. S. Policy in the 40s, 50s and 60s and try to get back to u. S. Policy that seeks to secure the goal that by and large we really did achieve successfully in europe during those years. Let me start after world war ii. After 1945 it was widely expected in the United States and in europe that u. S. Forces were not going to remain in europe for a very long after victory over nazi germany, was it going to be a matter of months or year or two, u. S. Was going to go home. It soon became obvious as the cold war began to kick off, that the permanent or semipermanent u. S. Security role in europe was going to have to be undertaken. And that leads fairly rapidly to the creation of nato alliance. At the same time or almost at the same time, the u. S. Realizes that the european state and really here we mean western europe peian states were far weaker, far socially weaker, politically weaker and economically weaker after world war ii than the u. S. Had expected. It turned out that they couldnt stand on their own right away, that if we left immediately, the whole place was doing to fall apart. This leads rapidly, again, to the advancement of u. S. Reconstruction efforts in primarily western europe, really epitomized in the Marshall Plan. Both the Marshall Plan and nato have sort of the same fundamental goal. Of course theres concern about an actual soviet invasion of western europe, what is really more significant is the american diagnosis that the europeans have lost confidence, the real threat, in other words, is not soviet invasion, its an internal pure peian collapse, that might come as a result of concerns about security the, the need to nato but also going to prop up the europeans and give them self confidence and Economic Economic social and. All of this stems from very thoughtful american diagnosis of the causes of the Great Depression, the causes of the rise of the nazis and the causes therefore of world war ii and the american concern is dont let European Economics and security go down the drain because when they go down the drain, you get european political radicalism and then bad things happen and ultimately the American Army has to get involved. Thats a reasonable and i think correct diagnosis. So what are the american remedies, how do you stop this from happening, again. Well in the best sense of the word, american remedies are very liberal, free trade, one of the one of the american diagnosis your nations are too walled up economically you need to trade more with each other, youll be more prosperous that way and it will be good for you politically too. What we now call the world bag begins as reconstruction shortterm Reconstruction Program in europe. Theres debt forgiveness, particularly at germany on a very large scale. There is the International Monetary fund which is short term currency collapses the u. S. Places enormous emphasis on journal regionalism and making germany a federal state to try to reduce the centralizing power of ber lean and to make germany a little bit like the United States, with strong states, strong republics inside germany. And, of course, theres strong u. S. Emphasis on Multi Lateralism. This is multilaterals on the political level and on the security level. All of these things are intended to rebuild the european state same to refortify, to restrengthen france, britain, germany in a federal structure, italy, and the other sort of smaller states within europe. This is not a program of wiping out the nation states of europe, its a program of rebuilding the nation states of europe. By and large this program is extremely successful, nato works. European confidences fortify, Marshall Plan and other u. S. Efforts are successful. European do recover. Theyre not invaded by the soviets and theyre not over taken by domestic radicalism from the far right to the far left. Now, one other part of this american agenda is the support for emerging ideas about european integration centered on the Steel Community in the 1950s. The community is initially a french idea and the idea really is to restrain germany to tie it in to the institutions before it gets too powerful. The u. S. Backs the Steel Community and the predecessor of todays eu but part of this much Larger Program of basically lower case l, liberal Multi Lateral nation state fortifying successful policies. So fast forward to 1989, 1991, we get through the end of the cold war and the u. S. Decides that, hey, what we want to do after 1945 we can now do, right, we can start reducing our exposure to europe. We cant maybe not bring everyone home, we can start bringing people home, look, weve won the cold war in europe. What does this lead the United States to do, it leads the United States to begin to out source most of its policies towards the to the European Union. The union becomes the vehicle for many, although not all american policies in europe, because as we decrease our interest in europe, as we decide we can pivot, to coin a phrase, to asia or the middle east, the European Union becomes our interlock, our representative as it were in europe. Now, at the same time the European Union decides it can step on the gas pedal. During the cold war, the union doesnt get very far down the road of integration because you need those strong nation states if youre going to keep peoples loyalty during the cold war and actually win the cold war. Germans might fight for germany, italians might fight for italy, the french will fight for france, brit will fight for britain, but theyre not going to fight for europe. Some of you may know what Winston Church hill called the idea of European Army in 1953 in a letter to president eisenhower, he called it is slugymalgan. Theyll fight for their nation. If we want a nato force it has to be a sere ri of national forces, not some pretend european force. Well, after the cold war is over, all of these cold war imperatives seem to disappear. So the eu begins to step on the gas pedal and integration goes faster and faster and deeper and deeper precisely the moment where the u. S. Is out sourcing more of its european policies to the European Union. When this process begins to create instability, the euro, for example, or the large scale of immigration and migration into europe, the eus answer is very simple, more europe. What do we need when the euro causes problems, we need much higher level of financial tax integration into brussels, what happens when immigration, migration becomes a problem. The European Union needs to take full control of everyones borders to solve this problem. The answer is always more and more europe. Weve now reached a point where this process has become both self perpetuating and self destroying. The more europe demands to solve problems that it can, in fact, solve, the more problems it creates and the more problems it creates the more demands, even more power to solve the problems that it has already failed to address in the past. In the cards of all of this, we in the United States have lost sight of our goals and our policies in europe. What are those goals what are our policies, i dont think theyve changed sints 1945. We still have the same basic interests in europe. What are those interests in above all, they are peace, right. We want the european continent to be useful. Our instrument for that has always been nato. Since the late 1940s, the American Security instrument to assure peace in europe both the defendant against exterm threats and to sure up europe pliticily internally has been the alliance. The eu is not a question to the question. Goal of peace. Secondly, as a contribution to peace and also its a good thing, we want pros sparety. This stems, again, from the american diagnosis that the Great Depression was the cause of the nazis who were the cause of world war ii. Where are we in europe now. Were now backing the euro, which is bad economics. Bad economics, thelessen we learned in world war ii, bad economics dont make good politics. Bad economics make bad politics. What are we backing in europe now. We are backing a currency which can only be maintained by creating extremely high levels of unemployment and extremely low levels of Economic Activity in most of the mediterranean countries. We are deliberately adopting a, we need a bad economic strategy. Are we following the lessons that we learned in the Great Depression and world war ii. No, were not. Were adopting exactly the opposite lesson. Were delivering empowering bad economics. You know what, were getting bad politics as a result, not a surprise. Our interest in europe, of course, is democracy. I will echo everything that victoria said. The eu is hostile to National Level politics and to National Level politicians. It intrudes extremely deeply into all of europes nation states. It generates hostility, in some ways that i find completely understandable, and other ways that i find less desirable. Above all, the European Union is not the answer problem of european democracy in part because it is super national, in part because it dislikes nation states. But ultimately because if you look around europe today and you believe that some european Political Trends are concerning, hey, ive got news for you, all of those trends took route when the European Union was in existence. If the European Union is the cure for political extremism, how come the yuan job had advanced further and further people have become more and more concerned about the state of european politics. I will submit that the answer here is not more eu, the answer here is less eu because weve had more eu, weve had more problems. My view is if continue to base unthinking support for the European Union and i think most american support for the eu is unthinking and pardon me, ignorant. It will continue to see more economic strains, which are inherent in the euro. It will continue to see rising liberalism and it will continue to see a weaker european u. S. Trance atlantic link in the bargain because it will all of these developments will under mine nato. I dont think any of these things are in the interests of the nations of europe. I dont think theyre in the interest of the United States either. I think the true interest of the United States are to return to the ideas, the american ideas that helped save western europe after 1945 and then saved Eastern Europe after 1989 which are the ideas of Economic Freedom, Multi Lateral cooperation for security and pros parity and support for a Democratic National government, that was the basis of the american strategy in europe after 1945 and it worked. And you know what, it can work again today if we have the courage and it doesnt take very much courage to return to things that it worked successfully in the past and not continue to go down the foolish road that weve increasingly followed since the end of cold war. Thank you. [ applause ] hes a leading expert on the u. S. , uk special relationship and u. S. Policy towards europe. Gardner has testified before congress on several occasions and has advised the executive branch on a range of issues relating to u. S. Foreign policy in the trance atlantic alliance. Before joining heritage, gardner served as an aid to former british Prime Minister and advise her on number of International Policy issues. Working in her private office, gardner assisted Lady Thatcher with her final book, state craft, strategies for a changing world. Gardner received as doctorate two masters degree from Yale University and bachelors and masters degree in modern history from oxford university. After the remarks, we will have time for some questions you might want to start thinking about them now. Thank you and over to you. Thanks very much, luke and thank you to tad and victoria two excellent presentations and thank everybody for joining us today. My view are very clear. I believe firmly that the Great Britain is better off outside of the European Union and its not any good for britain, but its also good for europe frankly and also for america