Mariana Mazzucato Quotes

The arguments in the Brexit vote and in the American presidential campaign are about the same. In a friendly way, may I also give some advice to the American people to make the right choice when the moment comes.

You can suddenly have a series of countries waking up and saying, 'I want the same status as the Brits,' which will be, de facto, the dismantling of the rest of Europe.

Moral claims can be asserted as a national prerogative only at the cost of long-term domestic and international support.

No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.

The separation of the West from the United States is inevitable

Sovereignty is not just at the national level; that's the mistake of Brexit that other people make.

Brexit was the first brick that was knocked out of the establishment wall.

If you look at it ideologically, I would say Brexit is not something that probably is good for the world.

2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up.

Brexit has really broken a taboo. The Brits have shown us that you can leave the European Union, and you can come out better.

I'm an economic nationalist. I am an 'America first' guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I've also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I've never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.

The Brexit vote, the presidential elections in the U.S., a number of the other regional political movements - that's not a flash in the pan.

You see it with Brexit, you see it in Donald Trump's election, you see it with the fact that neither of the main parties ended up in the final round of the French presidential election, you see it with the Italian referendum being defeated, you see it in a lot of ways - the political revolution.

Shouldn't India, too, like other countries, protect its national interests?

I find it unspeakably sad that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union.

Brexit and Trump had upended the fundamental establishment viewpoint that politics was aspirational, that good politics promised progress, generational betterment and ever-expanding world reach.

The single most important impediment to global institutions is the concept of "my country, right or wrong".

I actually think this whole Brexit thing in the U.K. was a welcome example of being straightforward. With the candidates pulling out quickly, there's no stringing the people along.

I believe that a country, Russia in this case, which can defend the honour and dignity of its citizens, protect their lives, and fulfill its international legal commitments under the peacekeeping mandate, will not find itself in isolation, no matter what our partners in Europe or the United States may think, expressing their bloc mentality.

I have respect for leaders who defend the interests of their countries. Angela Merkel policies are positive for Germany, but they are unfortunately harmful for all other countries.

In a world that has gone global, we no longer have a choice. If we don't export freedom, we risk importing the viruses which have corrupted other nations. ... Some critics complained that President Bush was arrogant when he suggested America can and should export freedom to other countries. This implies the people of unfree countries may not wish to be free. Which is the greater arrogance?

Some countries of Europe have to free themselves from the US Empire. They are not going to frighten us because we are a people with dignity and sovereignty.

The challenge is whether China as a rising country, the United States as the superpower, can develop a cooperative relationship in this period before nationalism becomes so dominant in China as a substitute for communism, and a kind of self-righteous isolationism in this country that substitutes China for the Soviet Union.

[Vladimir] Putin spoke unabashedly about the importance of national sovereignty in Syria, a concept apparently near and dear to his heart, unless it comes to the sovereignty of Georgia, Ukraine or any other country in which he intervenes. Then he offered his cooperation, but without making any concrete concessions at all. And he didn't have to, either. He knows what he can rely on. He has assets that are more valuable than words: He has tanks in Ukraine, fighter jets in Syria - and Barack Obama in the White House.

In the period after the Second World War, there were still leaders in Europe who represented weak countries, but possessed a sense of global foreign policy. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are politicians who represent pretty powerful countries, but whose citizens are not prepared to sacrifice themselves for the state.