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.

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.

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.

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.

No further political integration?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Misti, apologies, I thought they were renegotiating.

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

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