As many of you know, the results of the recent election were as follows:
Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate went a lenghts loud victory,
with 52% of the overall vote.
Jill Stein, the Green Candidate, came a distant second with 19%.
Donald J. Trump, the Republican Candidate was caught up on our hills with 14%.
And their reminder of the vote was shared between abstainers and Gary Jonhson,
the Libertarian Candidate.
(Astonishing silence and then laughters in the audience)
What parallel Universe do you suppose I'm living?
I don't live in a parallel Universe, I live in the world.
And that is outer world verdict.
Let me take you back and explain what I mean by that.
In June this year, I loaned something called: The Global Vote.
And the Global Vote, does exactly what it says on the tin.
For the first time in history, elects anybody, anywhere in the world
vote in the elections of other people's countries.
Why would you do that?
What's the point?
Let me show you what it looks like.
You go to a website, rather beautiful website and then you select an election
here's a bunch of what we've already covered,
we do about it one a month or there about
so you can see by gear the United States of America,
Secretary General of the United Nations,
the Brexit Referendum at the end head.
You select the election that you're interested in and you pick the candidate.
These are the candidates for the recent Presidential elections in the tiny
Island Nation in São Tomé and Prìncipe, under 99 of thousand inhabitants,
off the coast of West Africa.
And then you can look at the brief summary of each of those candidates,
which I dearly hope it's very neutral, very informative and very succinct.
And when you find the one you like, you vote.
These were the candidates in the recent Islandic Presidential election.
And that's the way it goes.
Why not would you do want to vote in another country's election?
The reason you wouldn't want to do it, let me reassure you,
is in order to interfere in the democratic process of another country.
That's not the purpose at all.
Infact, you can't because usually what I do is I release the results after
the elector in each individual country has already voted,
so there's not way that we can interfere in that process.
But more importantly, I'm not particularly interested
in the domestic issues of individual countries,
that's not what we are voting on.
What Donald J. Trump or Hillary Clinton propose to do for the Americans,
it's frankly none of our business.
That's something that only the Americans can vote on.
Now, In the Global Vote you are only considering one aspect of it
which is: "What of those leaders are going to do for the rest of us?"
And that's so very important,
because we live, as nonart of your seeking people tell you,
in a globalized, hyperconnected, massively interdependent world,
where the political decisions of people in other countries
can unwill have an impact on our lives,
no matter who we are, no matter where we live.
Like the wings of the butterfly, beating on one side of the Pacific,
that can apparently create a hurricane on the other side,
so it is with the world we are living today.
And the world of politics.
There is no longer a dividing line between domestic and international effect.
Any country, no matter how small, even if it's São Tomé and Prìncipe,
could produce the next Nelson Mandela, or the next Stalin.
They could pollute the atmosphere in the oceans which belong to all of us.
Or they could be responsible and they can help all of us.
And yet, the system is so strange because the system hasn't caught up
with this globalized reality.
Only a small number of people are allowed to vote for those leaders,
even though their impact is gigantic and almost universal.
What number was it? A hundred and forty million of Americans voted for the
next President of The United States
and yet, as all of us know, in a few weeks time,
somebody is going handle over the Nuclear Launch Code to Donald J. Trump.
Now if that isn't having a potential impact on all of us,
I don't know what it is.
Similarly the election for the Referendum on the Brexit Vote
a small number of millions of British people voted on that
but the outcome of the vote, which every way it went
would define a significant impact
on the lives of tens, hundreds of millions people around the world
and that the only tiny number that could vote.
What kind of democracy is that? Huge decisions that affects all of us,
being decided by relatively very small numbers of people
and I don't know about you, but I don't think that sounds very democratic.
So I'm trying to clear it up.
But as I say, we don't ask about domestic questions.
Infact, I have only ever asked two questions of all of the candidates.
I'm sending the same two questions every single time.
I say: 1. If you got elected, what are you going to do for the rest of us,
for the remainder of the 7 billion who live on this planet?
Second question: What is your vision for your country's future in the world?
What role do you see it playing?
Every candidate, I send the most questions and all of that answers,
don't get me wrong, I reckon if you're standing to become
the next President of the United States,
you' re probably pretty tied up most of the time,
so I'm not altogether surprised that they don't answer us, but many do.
More every time. And some of them do much more than answer.
Some of them answer in the most enthusiastic
and most exciting way you could imagine,
I just wanna say a word of it for Saviour Chishimba,
which was one of the Candidates in the recent Zambian Presidential election.
His answers to those two questions were basically an 18 page dissertation
on his view of Zambia's potential role in the world
and in the International Community.
I posted it on the website so anybody could read it.
Now Saviour, won the global vote, but he didn't win the Zambian election.
So I found myself wondering,
what am I going to do with this extraordinary group of people,
I brought some wonderful people here who want the global vote,
we always are getting wrong, by the way.
The one that we elect is never the person
who's is elected by the domestic electorate
- maybe Palin because we went to see to go for a women -
but I think it may also be a sign that the domestic electors
are still thinking very nationally, they're still thinking very inwardly,
they're still asking themselves: "what's in it for me?"
instead of what they should be asking today, which is: "what's in it for we?"
But there you go, so suggestions please, not right now but send me an e-mail
if you got an idea about we can do with this amazing team of glorious losers.
We've got Saviour Chishimba who I mentioned before,
we got up at Tómasdóttir who was running up
in the Islandic Presidential elections, many of you may have seen her in
an amazing talk at TED women just a few weeks ago,
where she spoke by the need for more women to get into politics.
We got Maria das Neves from São Tomé and Prìncipe.
We got Hillary Clinton, I don't know if she's available.
We got Jill Stein, and we covered also the election
for the next General Secretary of the United Nations
and we called the ex Prime Minister of New Zealand
who'll be a wonderful member of the team.
I think maybe those people, the glorious losers,
would like to travel around the world, wherever there's an election,
and remind people of the necessity in our modern age,
of thinking a little bit outwards
and thinking of the international consequences.
What comes next to the global vote?
Obviously the Donald and Hillary show is a bit of a difficult one to follow,
but there's another really important election that's coming up.
Infact they seemed to be multiplied, there's something going on,
I'm sure you've noticed in the world
and the next roll of elections are all critically important.
And just a few days time we got the reveal of the Australian Presidential election
with the prospect of nobody offer becoming commonly described
as the fast far right outer station europe since the Second Worlds War.
Next year we got Germany, we got France, we got Presidential election in Iran,
and a dozen of others.
It doesn't get less important. It gets more and more important.
Clearly, the global vote is not a stand alone project.
It's not just there on its own.
It has some background. It's part of the project which I've launched back in 2014
which I called 'The Good Country.'
The idea as a good country is basically very simple.
It's my simple diagnosis of what it's wrong with the world
and how we can fix it.
What's wrong with the world I've already went into that.
Basically we face an enourmous and growing number of gigantic
existential global challenges: climate change, human rights abuses,
mass migration, terrorism, economic chaos, weapons proliferation,
all of these problems is threatened to wipe us out
all by the very nature of globalized problems
no individual country has the capability of tackling them on its own.
And so very obviously, we have to cooperate and we have to collaborate
as nations if we're going to solve these problems.
It's so obvious.
And yet we don't-
We don't do it nearly after enough.
Most of the time, countries still persists in behaving
as they were worring selfish tribes.
Battling against each other,
much as they have done since the Nation State was invented hundred of years ago.
And this is got to change. This is not a change in political systems
or a change in ideology. This is a change in culture.
We, all of us, have to understand,
that thinking inwoods is not the solution to the world's problems
we have to learn how to cooperate and collaborate a great deal more
and compete just a tiny bit less.
Otherwise things we are carrying on are getting bad,
and are going to get much worse much sooner that we anticipate.
This change will only happen if we, ordinary people, tell our politicians
of things to change. We have to tell them that the culture is changed.
We have to tell them they got a new mandate.
The old mandate was very simple and very single.
If you're in a position of power or authority you're responsible
for your own people and your tiny slice of territory, and that's it.
And if, in order to do the best thing for your own people,
you screw over everybody else on the planet, that's even better,
that's considered to be a big macho.
Today, I think everybody in a position of power and responsibility
has got a dual mandate,
which says if you are in a position of power and responsibility,
you're responsible for your own people and
for every single man, woman, child and animal on the planet.
You're responsible for your own slice of territory and
for every single square of mile of the outer service and the atmosphere above it
and if you don't like that responsibility, you should not be in power.
That for me, is the rule of the modern age
and that's the message that we're going to get across through our politicians
and show them that that's the way things are done these days
otherwise, we're all screwed.
I don't have a problem actually with Donald Trump's Credo of America first.
It seems to me that this it's a pretty banale statement of what politicians
have always done and probably should always do.
Of course, they're elected to represent interests of their own people,
but what I find so boring and so old-fashioned,
and so unimaginative about his take on that,
is that America first means everyone else last.
The making America great again means making everybody else small again.
And it's just not true.
Images of all the policy advisor of the last twenty years or so,
I've seen so many hundreds of examples of policies that harmonize
the international and the domestic needs.
And they make better policy. I'm not asking nations to be altruistic
or self-sacrificing. That would be ridiculous!
No nation would ever do that!
I'm asking to wake up and understand that we need a new form of Government
which is possible and which harmonize those two needs
those good for our own people and those good for everybody else.
Since the US elections and since Brexit,
it's become more obvious to me that those old distinctions
of left wing and right wing no longer make sense anymore,
they really don't fit the pattern.
What does seem to matter, today, is very simple, whatever your view of the world
is if that you take comfort from looking inwoods and backwards
or rather, like me, you find hope in looking forwards and outwards.
That's the new politics. That's the new division that is splitting the world
right down the middle.
That may sound judgmental but it's not meant to be.
I don't a tall misunderstanding why so many people
find the comfort in looking inwoods and backwards.
When times are difficult, when you are short of money,
when you are feeling insecure and vulnerable,
it's almost a natural human tendency to turn inwoods to think that your own needs
and to discard everybody else's.
And perhaps to start to imagine the past was somehow better than the present
or the future could ever be.
But I happen to believe that that's a dead end.
History shows us that it's a dead end.
When people turn inwoods and turn backwoods human progress becomes reverse
and things get worse for everybody very quickly indeed.
If you align me, and you believe in forwards and outwards
and you believe that the best thing about humanity is its diversity,
and the best thing about globalization is the way that it starts up that diversity,
that culture will mix up, to make something more creative, more exciting,
more productive as ever been before in human history,
then, my friends, we've got a job in our hands
because the inwoods and backwoods relegated are united as never before
and that creed of inwoods and backwoods
that fear, that anxiety plain on the simplest instincts
is sweeping across the world.
Those of us who believe, as I believe in forwards and outwards
we have to get ourselves organized because time is running out very, very quickly.
Thank you.
(Applause)