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.

Winter and little, I suspect you feel as if people aren't recognising your moderate stance.

Wellthatsit thank you. Yes, that's exactly how I feel at the moment.

I predict that the moderate vote will be ignored, hence lending weight and power to the extremes.

I understand your concern. I am no more keen to see weight given to the extremes than anyone else.

However, after a Leave vote, it won't just be the Leave side who have a say in what happens next. Everyone in politics, and ordinary people across the country, will be working together in building a UK that we would like.

The UK cannot unilaterally veto any legislation.

And even if a government has a veto, they might not use it.

Just to reemphasise what someone else posted above. The UK opt out from an ever closer Union is an international treaty and therefore not something 'the EU' or its institutions can go back on. It stands, should the UK vote to remain.

As for the question whether an ever closer Union for every Member State is inevitable with the UK being the only one to benefit from an opt-out: of course it isn't. We already have different levels of integration, the Eurozone countries v the rest, and that 'rest' is protected from discrimination or decisions that would negatively affect them by specific provisions in EU law that are designed to safeguard their interests (for example, special voting arrangements to prevent Eurozone countries outvoting the non-Eurozone countries).

That, together with all other UK opt-outs (that are UK alone benefits from) and the experience of the last decades (where there was no attempt by any other Member State to undermine the special status the UK has negotiated for itself) shows that there is absolutely no cause for concern that the UK will somehow be drawn into a European superstate against its will.

OP, I hope this gives you some reassurance.

I don't think there's any official EU definition of "ever closer union" though, is there? So there could be a number of different interpretations of it in the future.

And even if a government has a veto, they might not use it.

Exactly. Plus we have no say if they do or not.

I don't think there's any official EU definition of "ever closer union" though, is there? So there could be a number of different interpretations of it in the future

Yes. We literally cannot rely on anything. I know Turkey keeps getting mentioned, but why are EU countries doing any business with them at all? Its because circumstances have changed that will happen, and what was once unthinkable quickly becomes something. Whether Turkey ever joins and in our life time or not, the very fact its being considered, and on the table should remind people, nothing can be relied on.

OP read the blog post that timeexperiencer links to. It is very helpful in framing whether you are a 'in it together' person with its inevitable compromises, or a 'go it along' person with its radicalism and risks.

Not irreversible? You are missing the key problem with loss of sovereignty is the European Court of Justice is above the highest UK Court. They interpret and enforce laws in the spirit of the EU treaties. Have a look at the treaties and Five Presidents report to see direction.

The ECJ is not to be muddled with European Court of human Rights (which is an independent entity and not anything to do with EU institutions - same as NATO etc)

the ECJ is ultimately what people refer to re. loss of sovereignty - laws can be made, but it is the interpretation by the ECJ which is our largest problem. Nothing gets past the ECJ that isn't in the spirit of the treaty and they can overrule.

the Council is made up of other country's leaders - so again if you are happy that other countries leaders impact on direction of EU, then vote to stay. Happy that those countries leaders will change regularly and you may not agree with any of their politics.

If you are ultimately happy that a European insitition we didn't elect (Commission) can initiate legislation (that we didn't vote for via an election manifesto of proposals) that are passed to MEPs and Council to shape- then returned to the Commission who (if unhappy with any amendments) issue approval that the vote has to be unanimous, or if Commission is happy with amendments then only 2 /3rds vote required.

Happy that those laws can then be enforced on us by ECJ - then vote to stay.

Being happy with all the above will mean you are happy for EU to tell us we have no say on free movement - despite other trade agreements not requiring this.

That you believe to stay linked to EU with further countries to join and our opinions even more diluted by the sheer numbers of votes from smaller countries -able to form alliances - then vote to stay.

Cameron saying he will give us a referendum on further changes: worth nothing unless there is treaty change - as ECJ can overrule. Blair promised a referendum on free movement - we didn't get it.

We voted for a trading deal. Look where we are now- probably best to vote based on "what they do - not what they say". They will say whatever they think it takes to scare us. Do research how lobbying works for big business to affect shape of EU laws and wonder why Blair thinks him being an overarching president , would make it work smoother.

The ECJ works to enforce treaties. It interprets the laws, and if they feel it is outside of the spirit of the treaty they overrule. It started as a coal and steel trading council and has developed into a political ideology of a European state.

See Boris' wife - human rights lawyer

"As David Anderson QC and Dr Cian Murphy have argued, the Charter — as it now stands — requires ‘enormous faith to be placed in the Court of Justice, its ultimate arbiter’. My current view is that a court which has been known in cases of vital importance to ignore its own rulings (viz, the infamous Digital Rights Ireland case), and give no reasoned explanation for doing so, is acting capriciously rather than judiciously. It does not inspire much faith.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12150613/Boris-Johnsons-wife-says-David-Camerons-EU-deal-is-not-enough.html

Thanks Anna2000 for your clear on topic post.

There is so much conjecture and so little substance on this thread. There are so many posters on all of the EU threads who seem to have hours and hours each day to spend posting lots of empty rhetoric. Why are you trying to mislead Mumsnetters?

Just a few weeks ago it was still possible to have an honest and factual discussion about the referendum on MN before the posters of Project Misinformation descended.

I've been working all morning and will be this afternoon. I just wanted to say thank you for the continued debate, that has (mostly) been measured and reasonable. I will read everything properly after hours!

Anna - ?

Cameron went specifically to try to get opt out from this phrase "ever closer" in treaties which we in Britain aren't happy with - as any lawyer would tell you - it is too loose and ambiguous and may be interpreted to our detriment at any time in future.

I think to say it is an attempt to pacify, without actually changing anything would be accurate description.

He doesn't have treaty change. The EU have said "next time they look at treaties" also it applies too broadly and is still open to interpretation.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked-for-and-what-he-actually-got/

"Final Deal: A win for Mr Cameron who has convinced EU leader that the EU treaties, when they are next opened, will include a new reference to make it clear that the words “ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”.

This clearly meets the manifesto commitment, however in a sop to Europe’s federalists like Belgium early drafts suggesting this exemption might apply more broadly – for example to countries like Poland and Hungary who have no intention of joining the Euro any time soon - were removed. This is a blow to Mr Cameron’s calls for the EU to accept the need for a looser, more flexible ‘live and let live’ Europe."

Official position is to be non plussed by the British trait of a tight legal definition;

www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/ever-closer-union-the-surrealist-brexit-summit/

There is no need for an EU treaty change as the legal basis is different (international law v EU law). If EU treaties are amended at a later stage, then this is to reflect changes in international law.

Hope this helps.

I might spoil my vote

Unless vote leave distance themselves from Farage more they need to make a clear statement about this and I am very disappointed they haven't

Unless vote leave distance themselves from Farage more they need to make a clear statement about this and I am very disappointed they haven't

Not sure what else they can do? He isn't part of the official campaign.

If radio and TV call him then not sure what they can do.

He hasn't been on any of the big debates other than a staged Q&A format.

They have said they nothing to do with the poster.

I understand what you mean and I was having the same conversation with someone about a certain person associated with remain.

We concluded neither Farage or the person on the remain side is going to go away so should it stop them from putting the x where they want to.

I know he isn't part of their campaign and I know he won't be given a position in government should leave win but many people believe he will and I feel they really need to give a very strong statement about that poster and what has been said today and that he is not part of their team and never will be

The irony of it is if we don't leave he still has a job and is likely to become more powerful. Farage is a good politician that is unfortunate regardless he isn't going away but UKIP will gain more vote if we stay

Intrigued who is the remain person ?

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.

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/

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

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!

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.

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.

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: 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."

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.