 So we have some questions here, we're going to ask for the mics and of course so there's one here, one here and some two over there. So if you can bring the mics please. Here Mr. Grifat and then there are two more over there. Thank you. I'm asking all the panel what you think will be the influence of the fact that today on on globalization on the fact that today matter of fact anybody can buy anything through the web and pay with the bitcoin or with all the other bitcoins all the other coins to which are exist which mean the meaning of today of globalization is much less because everybody can buy anything from whatever you want what do you think it would be the world is changing and I don't know if the governments are taking consideration the fact that matter of fact now even we speaking about banks or facebook making his own bank apple open his own currency you can pay you circumvent all all the systems what would be the influence on the in general globalization do you think that governments should if they would if they would they should discuss any changing any changes in globalization because of the fact they have no control anymore of anything was going between countries shadow trade yeah yeah so so there's there's been a long history now of thinking in the wto or in the in brussels or in washington to rewrite trade law you know that to take into account those new channels of distribution for example e-commerce or or this this this emerging technologies but we have not made any progress there and there's there's something that I think is very important in this entire globalization discussion to remember that policies matter tariffs matter but over history what has driven globalization much more than tariffs has been technology has been the invention of this theme ship has been the containerization of international transportation has been the automation and digitalization of logistics so this is more important than tariffs and so if you talk about the future of globalization this will be probably made as much by technology as by as by politicians mr vart I want to one thing you mentioned about new new phenomena but the wto they started so-called doha round from 2001 until now we didn't do anything we couldn't do anything not we didn't do we try but we didn't do anything but because of that we cannot accommodate to the you know the new new development in the world world economy but the thing is wto's decision-making mechanism among 164 countries they only decide based on consensus as long as you know one country is objecting to some idea we don't do anything so wto has been extremely outdated I agree with you but in the future without changing this decision-making mechanism we cannot do anything so that's very clear so yeah a question here oh so karl and then the question it's not outed okay no and one should not fool oneself having a few reforms wouldn't help at all when you don't have the willingness to cooperate you can design new rules but if you have no willingness to cooperate it doesn't work what mr bark says is completely correct but in addition to what he observes we now have a number of working groups on issues like e-commerce investment facilitation on small and medium-sized enterprises on domestic regulation for services which are no longer aiming for consensus but which are run by a limited group of countries between 56 and 85 who are aiming at designing rules and do it in such a way that late-comers could join but they do not want to be stopped by those who have no positive agenda so things are happening it is not all gloomy okay so next question well thanks to the panels thanks to you virgini i think there's more bad news i'm the one who believes that things are not going to get better regardless of what might be the outcome of the election for one or two reasons first of all i i agree that it's probably very difficult to get some sort of agreement between china and the us before the us election the chinese may be also hoping that thing would be better with the next administration so they are not necessary in a rush to sign something but i'd like to take one or two very short example i was in canada early october last year when the us mca was approved by canada and one of the thing that was and that was on the canadian media and not the fake news from the us the canadian media and they were saying that one of the reason why trump was happy with disagreement was that for wisconsin which is as you know a dairy state there was an increase of five percent and the milk product that could be exported to canada so it was marginal that was something that could be used during the campaign to say i've done something for the for these people that you were talking about who are feeling that free trade and globalization is not working to their best interest the second remark that i wanted to make is it's not just trade it's also market access and i agree with you again marcus when you say that the important stuff is transfer of force transfer of technology or intellectual properties we talked about that but nothing has really happened at the same time there's been significant steps taken in the us in the cyprus council for foreign investment in the united states taken by limiting access of chinese and other foreign interests in so-called security sensitive area and we've seen some of this and that's you know if you can't export you can always say i can make an acquisition or i can set up a business abroad which give you the same market access but if you at the same time you impose higher tariff and also restrict access to certain sectors of the economy things are getting much worse and the last thing i slight disagreement with you again i'm not picking on you when you say when trump pulled us off the tpp the tpp was never passed he pulled us from the paris acor from the nuclear deal but the tpp was not passed and in spite of obama had the tpa he didn't use it because at that time as you well know bernie sanders was against it elizabeth elike linton was against it and so on and so forth and i agree with you i mean when i look at the democratic side warren and sanders are going to be worse than trump on that score okay so just two quick questions one here one here and then one here we don't have much time so if you don't mind going fast the question is precisely on this key factor which is the evolution of the u.s. in the coming months you know and and two years you know and first so it is a question mainly targeted towards marcus and the first question is do you consider realistic that we have a scenario in which in case of difficulties which during the campaign or beginning of a recession or stock market decline trump will do everything possible to have a final agreement with chinese not a temporary one and he would he could be ready to sacrifice what i would call the structural part of the u.s. demands i mean technology extortion and for example ipr etc in order just to increase your chinese in us exports to china and so do you think it's a scenario because i know that i heard that like tizer is was is fearing that and is ready to resign on that which will be not the first not the last to resign from this administration but the second question is after the election in terms of scenarios for trump we see very clearly the only thing one can say that he would be even more unleashed that he is now especially we've tried everybody agrees on that what could you say what about the president warren you know because we cannot rule out elizabeth warren she's really the leading candidate it's okay so two questions is he's going to have a deal at all cost and what would elizabeth warren do okay so the issue with trump is could trump in the interest of getting elected sort of sacrifice a really comprehensive structural agreement with china just to take some kind of market access dealing in declare victory of course and in fact i would say he's likely to do that that's his that's been his pattern for three years he makes he makes grandiose statements and claims and then he settles for small deals and then tells the american public that he's you know he's done a great job i mean he did this i mean the first deal with china was a deal that obama negotiated and then trump took credit for it so yes of course that's what we'll do the question is then what does he do next because the problems don't go away with respect to elizabeth warren she has um released a very detailed proposal on trade policy it's on her website and i would just recommend you take a look at it um the thing about um warren you know the way i would describe it is with republicans you get protectionism with the democrats you get trade with social work so yes we will have trade with you but we want to fix your human rights we want to fix your environment we want to fix your labor laws we come it comes with a log of baggage and if you read elizabeth warren's policy proposals uh i personally find them disturbing because they assume a lot of capacity in developing countries that i simply don't believe is there and while she may be genuine and sincere in wanting to eliminate child labor and improve labor conditions and human rights and the environment and everything else in these countries uh the u.s. uh trade system is a complainant driven system and once you put in a law that says you know if if ganna violates some kind of labor standard then it can't get access to the united states market whatever the motivation of elizabeth warren and her team was when they put it in i can guarantee you that american textile producers and the textile workers unions will be hiring investigators and lawyers to go scour ganna and find some violation of this law which then can be used to block access so you know one last plug since i plugged elizabeth warren this is much more important i do this stuff professionally and i can't follow it the ins and outs and what has been delayed and what has been raised and what has been lowered and what has been postponed and what has been brought forward my colleague chad bowne has a completely reliable timeline that he maintains on the peterson institute website so if you want to know what's going on with us trade policy where the current state of play is and how we got there go to piii.com and look for chad bounds uh trade timeline it is it is it is absolutely indispensable for this set of issues that's very true okay we have one minute left so i'm going to choose someone and really the last person is going to be you in the front because you haven't talked at all since uh this no no this man in front because we've heard you before if it's okay and this is the last one par les americans par est presque inévitable et lourde de conséquence est ce qu'il y a pas dans l'ancien de l'OMC une réflexion à revenir à la pratique du gâte avec des working groups comme étant une alternative et même si cela comporte l'inconvénient de revenir à cette notion de diplomacy orientated system than rules orientated system et merci the answer is no because what was happening in the olden days you were making deals irrespective of what the legal situation was now the rule of law prevails what are the thoughts on what is happening when the appellate when the appeal function goes away is threefold one could make a public statement as a party and invite others to join that one will not appeal whatever case will happen for a transition period one will not appeal the european union and canada have set up something that is an arbitration built on article 25 of the wto rules on dispute settlement and that resembles in the fashion that the europeans have chosen very closely the appeal procedures in the appellate body and the third is of course that people appeal to the nirvana and then the first instance decisions cannot enter into force and people do what they want and for me this is a regression of civilization and that's going to be our last word so it's a little sad but thank you very much for all our panelists and and talk about the trade and wto