I may change my vote.

[CarlGrimesMissingEye]

I have been firmly on the side of leave. Predominately thanks to my basic disagreement with ever closer union. I was having a very healthy, sensible and inoffensive discussion with a remained for who I have great respect, and he pointed me in the direction of this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/17/david-camerons-end-to-europes-ever-closer-union-means-britain-sh/

I read it and went on to glance over Tusk's later about the exemptions for Great Britain if we remain in the EU here:

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/

I would be curious to hear the views of other people here as to how they feel about this specific issue. How likely is it that Tusk and the EU can renege on their promises?

To be honest, if what is written about us being exempted from the ratchet of EU tighter control and the notion of being entitled to a referendum before more powers are conceded is true then that allays many of my concerns.

However, I am aware of the legislative creep that may circumvent this and I also have a basic lack of trust in politicians so I'm not 100% on certain what to do again.

Any views, other information etc would be great.

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

pang - pretty document – for those that "receive information"; assumes we are numpties that don’t understand difference between “draft”; “propose” and “initiate” legislation.

I have time for people that understand how Commission works and openly wish for this type of “do as I say” society. Fair enough.

However, it should not be represented that it is democratic and that our MEPs can change direction of initiatives proposed.

Anyone wishing to get insight as to why it is undemocratic - compare EU system to UK system.

It should be known that Commission have monopoly to initiate legislation of anything covered in the treaties.

The only element of the Commission that is like our UK Civil Service is that they draft and research the proposal. However, crucially the Commission also have monopoly on “legislative initiative”, which should be an elected government’s job.

Here in UK we elect a government based on a manifesto of legislative initiatives which pass back and forth between House of Lords and then voted on.

We do not elect House of Lords and they cannot initiate what is known as "controversial legislation" ie impacts on us financially etc. The House of Lords is to shape/improve laws initiated by Government.

The House of Lords role is similar to the MEPs in that they are involved in law making (shaping and voting), but not in law initiating (government’s job).

MEPs - shape/improve proposed laws initiated by the Commission and then vote (see below how Commission dictate voting level required to pass re Parliament and Council.

Both House of Lords and MEPs have a limited right of legislative initiative. With MEPs it also has to be a majority of them that have "ASKED" the Commission to consider a particular "non-controversial" matter and the Commission will decide whether to initiate and draft the proposal.

The Commission decide what gets placed before EU parliament to shape/vote. It is not MEPs as we would expect –as is the case in UK system.

"may, acting by a majority of its component Members, request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal".

" However the Commission retains the right of initiative and cannot be forced into providing a legislative proposal"
Simple introduction that explains who may ask Commission to look into initiating and how Commission can refuse that request.

hum.port.ac.uk/europeanstudieshub/learning/module-2-understanding-eu-policy-making/the-right-of-initiative-does-the-commission-have-the-monopoly-of-initiation

Ordinary procedure - dependent on whether Commission are happy with any changes, they decide if voting is to be unanimous or 2/3rds for law to be passed (affect outcome of vote). See step 19 attached

epha.org/IMG/pdf/co-decision.pdf

[Mistigri]

You don't need to apologise. If there is still confusion, it's because neither campaign has shown any interest in communicating facts.

[TooMuchMNTime]

Misti, apologies, I thought they were renegotiating.

[Mistigri]

People mentioning Canada
Do ordinary people in Canada feel the effects of that agreement taking so long to sort?

This is a strange question, because how can you "feel the effects" of the status quo continuing? An EU-Canada trade deal will increase trade in future (that's its purpose), but until its signed, ordinary people are unlikely to feel absence of something they've never previously had.

In any case, comparing Canada's trade with the EU with the UK's is not realistic - a more reasonable comparison would be to compare Canada's trade with the U.S. Ordinary Canadians would certainly feel the effects if NAFTA was repealed, as Trump has suggested.

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

Justchanged- no one voted for free movement - the electorate wanted a referendum on the issue, which Blair didn't deliver.

At no time have we been asked if we wish to have our Judges' interpretation of law to be inferior to ECJ interpretation of spirit of treaties.

We are being asked now. Why it is our only chance to change direction EU is heading for the poorer countries is the EU living under cuts imposed.

[TooMuchMNTime]

Genuine question
People mentioning Canada
Do ordinary people in Canada feel the effects of that agreement taking so long to sort?

[CarlGrimesMissingEye]

Wellerr no wouldn't. But if we were outside coming in the Euro and Schengen would be obligatory I guess so it's slightly different, but actually, even if that wasn't the case, I really don't think I would

[MangosteenSoda]

What an interesting question WellErrr

I'd have to think about it quite carefully because if we were out and looking to join in now, the terms would be very different to the special terms the UK actually enjoys.

We are currently not members of the Schengen Area and will never have to join it. We are currently not in the Euro and never have to join it. We currently have a large rebate. We will now have added concessions on no further integration and more control over migration. So, it's really a different situation to what we have now.

I suppose I might vote in if the reasons for needing to join were strong enough - a poor economy needing the boost of the single market, lack of influence in global affairs compared to what we could have as a member would be two points I'd consider.

Essentially, if were looking at joining now, it would probably be for the same reasons we joined in the first place- economic imperative and so we would need to join, but be in a much less advantageous and influential position than we are now.

[WellErrr]

Also OP - if we weren't in the EU now; would you vote IN? I certainly wouldn't.

[Justchanged]

when did we vote for free movement? We voted for a government (Thatcher I recall) who voted for it. This is what we elect governments for - to represent us and make decisions in our interests. It needed 100% agreement - the UK could have vetoed it but did not. I call that democratic. We are also voting now.

[MangosteenSoda]

I second Carl's thanks. Especially for the clear and informative posts from Anna2000 and Pangurban.

I showed it to my previously undecided mother who has now decided to vote Remain.

[CarlGrimesMissingEye]

Thank you for all the posts everyone. The blog post earlier was very interesting and I think has strengthened my resolve to vote out.

[Spinflight]

No further political integration?

As the Lords ruled twenty years ago on the primacy of EU law what further political integration could happen?

[MangosteenSoda]

I've found that people who have researched the EU properly are able to have a sensible and informed discussion about it without scattering around misleading statements and denying verifiable facts. They don't always come to the same conclusions, but they debate truthfully.

[MangosteenSoda]

Thanks Pangurban, hopefully anyone looking for factual information has got this far.

Most of the posters on this thread are not looking for facts though, they are here spreading misinformation. I hope interested Mumsnetters are able to find balanced debate elsewhere.

[Pangurban1]

www.tasc.ie/opengovtoolkit/public-decision-making/european-union/

Scroll down to the very end of that page. There is a diagram showing how all the EU bodies work together.

Contrary to the people working in the Commission making all the decisions, the European Council, heads of all the countries, set the policy agenda for the Commission to work from.

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

AnnaForbes:

One thing I've noticed about people that have researched EU properly is they are either shocked at how the system works and wish to leave, or they have a vested interest in us remaining (pension/work/lobbyist) and shout "racist".

Corbyn on Andrew Marr yesterday was very clear (as are all the documents on the EU websites) that they need to speed up the integration as they need to homogenise the wages so we don't exacerbate imbalances in movement of people that exist.

People will always be drawn here because of healthcare - there is no point in sticking fingers in ears and pretending otherwise. I'm in private sector of healthcare working on contracts NHS farm out - I know what is happening.

You can't merge a group of disparate economies/benefits systems and expect it to work. Voila - I present the EU - a failing experiment.

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

Justchanged: remind me, when was it we voted for free movement of people? When was it we voted for a Judicial system which now overarches our own?

We have already lost huge areas of soverenigty. If we vote to leave we aren't just preventing further encrocahment on our sovereignty, we are voting to regain our own decision making which has been handed to Brussels.

The key component of democracy is it is loaned to our representatives, but it should be returned to the people to pass to whomsoever we next choose.

Tony Benn did have some good quotes, which seem apt currently:

“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people and secondly, demoralise them.”

Tony Benn thought any meaningful change could only come from below, and felt apathy was openly encouraged by those in positions of power. “The Prime Minister said in 1911, 14 years before I was born, that if women get the vote it will undermine parliamentary democracy. How did apartheid end? How did anything happen?”

Most famous quote on what to ask of those in power:

What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?”
If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

[Viviennemary]

So if there is ever closer union then the UK will be on the outside. What influence will it have then. But this is pie in the sky IMHO. The EU is on the brink and will disintegrate long before any political superstate. If it doesn't then God help us all.

[Justchanged]

I cannot envisage any circumstances in which Britain is not exempted from ever closer union. The promise was clearly made.

Maybe technically it's not legally binding yet, but that is the same as saying the Queen could reject the result of a general election and invite someone else to form a government. Technically she may be able to but politically it's unthinkable.

By all means vote leave if you must, but not because of misinformation or paranoia. European countries are our friends and neighbours. They are not out to get us in some dastardly plot for world domination. The EU works by consensus. We are Europe and have much more influence than is given credit for. I have represented the UK at EU meetings, and when the UK representative speaks, the other countries listen. That is why the UK position is upheld in the vast majority of EU directives.

[Viviennemary]

Anybody who thinks the EU can be reformed is living in cloud cuckooland. David Cameron promised reform and got nothing. It isn't going to happen. Vote as you wish. But don't vote remain on the basis of a hoped for different or reformed EU. Don't fall for this one.

[AnnaForbes]

Anna - you clearly have an overly optimistic view of EU institutions. Lol, I thought you meant me! Two Annas, one fiercely anti-EU and the other pro-EU. It gets confusing!

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

Re"international law" purlease. Yes some lawyers say this - some say not.

It is for public to decide who we believe. This will be based on experience of an unreformable EU.

The only chance EU have is if people in other EU countries are listened to -able to say they want a trading zone, not be part of a political ideal which is destroying Mediterranean countries.

Half of Europe want referendum
www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-europe-idUSKCN0XZ0W8

[LeaveTheRoundAbout]

Anna - you clearly have an overly optimistic view of EU institutions.

the proposed deal is not binding - only by those who wish it were. Yes there are lots of lawyers saying it is, but lots say it it isn't - particularly bearing in mind it is Judges that will decide ( Re: accountability of EU Judges - see Marina wheeler article above).

People should do their own research and look at experience of how EU has manifested into supranational law making entity - saying we can only trade with free movement of people (unlike any other trade deal).

People should research and base opinion on where we are now, and how we got here. Then compare it to what we were promised previously.

"Far from reversing the flow of power, buried away in the text of the deal it is clear that Britain has made further concessions. Through this deal, Britain has surrendered what leverage it might have had in future by agreeing “not to impede euro area” reforms. Goodbye to a big bargaining chip".

www.lawyersforbritain.org/reneg-ever-closer-union.shtml

"But leaving aside the non-binding nature of the promise of future treaty change, the real point is that all that is promised is a treaty change which will repeat "the substance of this"; that is the substance of the first sentence quoted above which simply "recognises" the existing legal position. So all that is promised is to write into the treaty an acknowledgement of the existing legal position. There is no promise at all to make a change to the treaty which actually changes the legal position".

www.lawyersforbritain.org/reneg-legal-status.shtml

www.lawyersforbritain.org/reneg-ever-closer-union.shtml

Guardian article actually well researched :
www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2016/feb/10/introducing-camerons-eu-red-card-limited-impact

Let us be clear: the draft EU deal is not a repatriation of power. It simply underlines the extent to which power has already been surrendered.
www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/go-back-and-get-more-from-the-eu-prime-minister/

There is nothing legally binding about the deal in EU law, with Alexander Graf Lamsdorff, vice president of the European Parliament recently describing the agreement as “nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar”.

The deal explicitly says that the EU keeps all of its existing powers over the UK and there are no transfers of powers back to Westminster.

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/23/why-britain-cannot-afford-to-be-conned-by-camerons-eu-renegotiat/

[CoolforKittyCats]

The irony of it is if we don't leave he still has a job and is likely to become more powerful.

That for me is a huge fear.