It strikes me that Prof. Dougan would stand to gain hugely from consultancy fees in the event of Britain leaving the EU. So I admire him all the more for telling the truth.

Excellent lecture. In fact the most cogent and coherent I've heard during this whole debate.

This was the speech that made my mind up to vote remain. My god this video has aged well. He was right, every single word. Great work.

Such a shame that the vast majority of the people who will cast a vote will never see this or similar. This is the kind of information people need, not the hysteria, hyperbole and lies we're being force fed by the politicians. Excellent talk and thank you for shining a light.

Finally someone who knows something talking about the debate. Why are we not getting this kind of quality information from our traditional media?

He said himself it's in his interest to leave the EU as it provides him with endless work restructuring the legal system, but it's not what he believes is best for Britain.

Leave voters: "Oh look, an expert with decades of experience regarding the EU giving a fact and evidence based lecture saying we should Remain. Let's ignore him."

I think people need to look up the phrase 'ad-hominem attack' if they are going to disagree with this professor's view. If you don't have a good argument against what a person is saying, don't argue the facts just try to undermine the person stating them. It's also appallingly me how so many viewers can call him smug, as if putting across your credentials as an expert in a certain field is a bad thing. If he didn't state them then the same people would be arguing 'who is this guy and what authority does he have to say these things?'

Absolutely fantastic talk Professor. I was very much undecided about the EU referendum and you could say I was slightly leaning towards the leave camp. So, as you do, have a discussion with your family members and ask them on their thoughts. It was my sister who pointed me towards this video and it finally made sense. Why was this person not asked to inform the members of the public in the UK regarding the EU membership, why was this this person not given the platform on our national TV channels to give the people facts. We have had politicians using tactics that are used in the school grounds by bullies, scaring the public into making a choice. Getting to my point, I have decided to to cast my vote 23rd June 2016 and have strongly decided to REMAIN. Thanks again Professor.

the most balanced talk from an expert on EU law to help make up our minds about the big vote on Thursday.

Exactly the sort of thing that Michael 'Slithy' Gove doesn't want people listening to. Good work Professor.

This needs to be shared and shared and shared.

Clear, insightful, balanced, honest, nuanced information, with a useful sprinkling of personal opinion as to the significance of that info as a conclusion. I can imagine there will be a whole army of haters attacking this, for reasons of bigotry and post-truth indignation.

Good to hear intelligent and rational debate. Totally agree.

Excellent Finally a straight answer about this debate.

Bravo Prof. Finally solid FACTS and no scare mongering. I'm IN

I've been looking for some intelligent explanation on this debate and finally I've found it from Professor Michael Dougan. Thank you very much for speaking so well and without the inane condesention of both the Remain and Leave campaigns. There are many who are confused and undecided and I was one of them. At the very least, now, I feel as though I can make an informed decision about the Remain vote. I'm still curious to hear such an eloquent and educated view from the opposite position and would definitely listen to it. I've shared this on my Facebook page and many of the people I know have reacted the same way as I have - pleased and relieved to finally have some sensible explanation from someone credible. Thank you Professor.

An excellent, informative and balanced talk with none of the hyperbole produced by politicians on both sides. Professor Dougan clearly shows that there are objective facts that we should all be aware of and take into account when deciding how to vote. Despite what Michael Gove says, I would like to hear more from experts like Professor Dougan who are able to provide an honest and balanced analysis of the issues and far less from politicians pedalling the same old misleading myths, exaggerations, distortions, evasions and downright lies. Why is this not on TV?

This comes from the University of Liverpool website: All UK universities compete for research funding from the EU - the EU being one of the largest sources of scientific funding in the world. Professor Dougan was awarded a Jean Monnet Chair in 2006 in recognition of his personal excellence as a leading researcher in EU law. The award came with a one-off payment of approx. £24,000 which was spent on an academic conference assessing recent developments in Single Market law (the results of which were then published in an international peer reviewed journal) and on supporting research training for PhD students at the University of Liverpool. The award represents considerably less than 0.001% of the School’s income since 2006. To suggest that that research income in any way influenced the professional abilities of our staff, or has ever paid / continues to pay their professional salary, is entirely incorrect and misleading. WHEN WILL THE UKIP TROLLS STOP LYING, TO UNDERMINE ANYONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR DISHONEST, FEAR MONGERING, HATE FILLED PROPAGANDA? Shame on you. Shame on you.

Really appreciate hearing from an actual expert.

I really want to thank Professor Michael Dougan for this. I am having a hard time explaining some of this (which I firmly believe) to friends or others. I'm sharing it on Facebook and also to a political page. I live in France and have been here for 21 years apart from a short stay in the UK last year, when I got to vote in the general election. My future and that of my adult children, is completely up in the air, as they live in France, Germany and England! I'm very pessimistic about the outcome of this vote. My voting card arrived on Saturday and I had three days to get it back to Wales for Thursday! I sent it by registered post this morning. Is this a ploy to stop us 'outsiders' from voting? All I'm hearing is 'immigration'... My heart is aching to hear some sense about that argument!

It absolutely boggles my mind, reading the comments here, that people believe they understand more about EU law and the nuances of EU rule than a professor who has studied and taught it over decades. How are people's egos this big? Why are leave followers so suspicious of 'experts'? If you got hit by a truck you'd want to be seen by a doctor (an expert in medicine), if you got in an aeroplane you'd want a qualified pilot at the helm (expert in flying planes). Yet you are willing to dismiss an expert here because their view doesn't tally with the information (which he demonstrates is untrue) you've read or heard elsewhere? It makes no sense. I am all for second opinions, but the vast vast majority of experts in law, economy, trade, environment age ee with Prof Dougan. Why do btl commenters think their meme reading qualifies them to dispute him?

More, clear, overwhelming, understandable, reliable information.

I can't disagree with much of what Professor Dougan has stated here (I am a lawyer myself and was already aware of much of what is presented here) but I feel that he has only addressed one half of the question - the legal, technical and economic reasons for leaving of which there may ostensibly be few. There is also the political side and the fundamental question of the role of government. "Yes there are problems" - well go into them please. It's disingenuous to suggest that the EU is not a political institution in its own right with its own political goals. Yes, the UK is a major player in the EU and is part of that agenda. Hold our national governments to account if you don't like the direction of the EU, I hear you cry. This is simply naive as is the notion that we can 'fix it from within'. It's wishful thinking. No centralised power reduces its influence willingly and all evidence points towards the EU trying to increase its scope of influence and its priority will always be in ensuring its own survival above all else. We saw what happened in Greece. I suppose the EU did not ride roughshod over Greece's sovereignty because Greece took its punishment 'willingly'? If the EU was nothing more than a trading zone and forum for European collaboration I would have absolutely no reason to vote anything but Remain. As it stands, I must reluctantly vote Leave. Yes, rely on experts for facts but don't cede your judgement to them.

Proud of you, my administrative law lecturer

The remain campaign should televise this lecture. If somebody watched this and still voted out, they can only be basing their decision on immigration which is another media invented problem!

Have come back to this in 2018 to remember how much was known before the vote and how much was ignored.

If only this had gone viral before the debate :/

I have worked hard to collate insightful EU referendum resources from all sides of the debate. I have to say this is one of the most enlightening I have seen. Thank you so much. Unfortunately, much of the pervading cynicism around experts will make this hard to get through, but I will try!

Probably the most important man to listen to in the whole debate , over 20 years of research in this particular field and people are questioning his views , people who have absolutely zero eduction on any kind of law , God fucking help us

Over 200 people just had their world view destroyed... just imagine their faces, like rabbits in a car head light, numb and unable to move or know what to do.

He's a paid advocate of the EU, a Monnet professor. This is not an unbiased view.

Listening to him persuaded me to vote Remain.

Logical, coherent and fact-based argument that dispels many myths.

This should have been required reading for the entire electorate . Too late now !!!!!!!!!

Why has this video not been used by the Remain campaign. It should have been included in every single speach, since he evidently knows more about it than the politicians.

Thank you Professor, fascinating insight. The ideas presented about the international trade situation are clear & simple.

People only see and hear what they want to. The die has been cast and only time will show what the outcome is. Thank you Professor Dougan for an interesting unemotional presentation of the topic.

"Dishonesty on industrial scale": Brilliant!

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can watch this and still vote Leave...

new entry for the English dictionary. Evidence - commonly known in fascist circles as scaremongering.

What a prophecy. Everything he has said has become true.

Mr. Expert did not mention the undemocratic way the EU parliament is trying to ignore the European people will to not enter into a TTIP agreement with the U.S. .... as an example....

I wish our government could provide a clear picture like this, instead of their political rhetoric. Thank you very much for presenting the facts.

After Brexit, this video is so much more chilling. The UK doesn't have an effective government any more, and we don't have a plan for the future. Oh boy.

My question is for the Brexiters, is there any literature or discussion that gives a clear view or idea of the impact an exit will have on Britain? So a clear comparison can be made. Insulting someone for presenting research is not an intellectual or civilised way and getting your point across.

The UK Mass Media entities who fail to link this to their fb page as a post and fail to print a transcript of this should be held accountable for any negative consequences that will result from a mis-decision to Brexit.

This is a fascinating lecture and underlines what we know about so many of our politicians

Excellent talk! I really hope there were more talks like this looking at all the arguments presented in more detail.

Great to hear some proper facts at last. Instead of thee usual scare mongering

This is inward looking, he's a lawyer - he's a safety man, not a risk taker, and he's the problem: the EU needs to broaden its horizons and to do so should lower the barriers and encourage external trade - and on that, it won't - not ever. As it is they are still broke for the credit crisis. Things might be okay now, but they have printed (the future generations) money to save us. If the UK stay, the developing world should play the same game and isolate the EU out.

Very good, Interesting and informative

We will watch this one day, in the not so distant future, with complete anguish that not enough people got to see it.

Send this to your opposing friends, see if they have anywhere near a concrete answer.

Vote leave

Gove may think that the British public have had enough of experts, but this is the only sensible commentary that I've seen in relation to the us and the EU

Sad how accurate this video has been. Can we have an update on what we do now as it's pretty clear the UK has no idea what it is doing?

Great talk and, as a brexiter, certainly food for thought. My questions are: 1) why is he so certain that the big players in the EU are Britain, France and Germany. He doesn't give any evidence for this statement despite his promise to be evidence-based. i need examples of how the UK has profoundly influenced EU policy making. 2)He criticizes Norway and Switzerland for getting a bad deal from the EU. So how comes those two countries consistently come tops in the UN charts of countries with the best quality of life for their citizens? 3) He makes it sound like we have no chance of setting up free trade agreements with the world's strong economies. Well i just profoundly disagree. We are the world's 5th biggest economy so why on earth would the world's biggest economy's not want to do deals with us. Nonetheless a really thought-provoking talk

yes Michael, it has turned out as you said and now what do we do???

The problem is the EU itself, the ruling body of the EU is unarguably the EU Commission and I am really not sure why Michael Dougan has categorically denied this but it is a lie to state otherwise. Now the one thing that both the IN Camps and Out Camps both agree on is the simple fact that the EU is not working and needs reform, to create reform you need to have 'Influence' (a word MD used often in this video) in that ruling body, we don't! In fact no country has any influence whatsoever on the ruling body of the EU, the EU Commission. This is very clear to see by reading Article 17(3) Treaty of the European Union (TEU) which clearly states EU Commissioners are forbidden to be influenced by their own governments, it is also reiterated in Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) where it clearly states that no national government is allowed to influence members of the EU Commission. No Influence = No Reform and No Reform = Better off OUT. Another important thing that Michael Dougan omitted to state in this video is the fact that the EU itself is still evolving, he is basing his whole argument on what the EU is at present, not what it will eventually become. Article 3(4) of the Lisbon Treaty, clearly shows us that the 'Union will become an economic and monetary union whose currency shall be the euro'. Once this occurs our national parliaments will become state parliaments and all law will be written in Brussels. Then the EU Superpower will be completed and that is most certainly not the best future for Britain or any of the other European countries already caught in this. I have always said that the best weapon to use for the OUT Campaign to win an EU Referendum is the EU's own treaties, its all written clearly in black and white and cannot be argued, however you never hear any of the so called experts on either side quoting them, I have just quoted three that show me we need to get out whilst we can and there are plenty more valid reasons to leave in the treaties. On June 23rd before you decide who will be Britain's law makers of the future I do strongly suggest people take a good look at those treaties, otherwise you will be signing up to an agreement without ever reading it and there is no recourse available when you do find out what is in them! One question I do always ask the Remainers that has so far proven to be a rather difficult one for them to answer is, "What does the EU do for Britain, that Britain is incapable of doing for itself that can justify the Billions it is costing us" ? Remember there are 196 countries in the world, 28 in the EU and yet the other 168 do not stipulate the same rules of trade nor charge us to be members of a club we have no real need to be in.

From a Green point of view, the choice is not Hobson's, it is Sophie's. Nothing is forcing us either way and Jonson's 'bowing down to Brussels' comment is factually wrong. According to the BBC 'More or Less' fact checking programme out of 2,500 votes, the UK didn't get it's way in about 50. So that is 98% of EU votes go the UK way. Greens hate the idea of further capitalist globalisation - the single market, but know that is a small problem compared with the even greater damage to our planetary environmental support system threatened by loss of existing EU environmental regulations. This is not a scare tactic - we have been saying this for decade on decade, only now do the other parties even realise there is a question to ask - they have not gone any real way towards providing a set of answers. Staying in therefore is having to chose between two children and hope the one you lose can cope better by itself and survive until we can deal with it directly once more. We can deal with globalisation only if we can still breathe - staying in lets us debate even greater environmental issues from the inside - where we geographically and meteorologically exist anyway. Please forgive my generalisations and remember that the details of the facts are less relevant than the power with with they are shouted anyway. This isn't an easy question and we have to give an easy answer - that can never be fully right - Sophie's choice - not Hobson's

I've not a clue what's going on. I'd believe a professor everytime over a MP

If we were truly sovereign he would not be teaching UK students about "Eu law". This is and Irish man who is defending 20 years of his life that will be erased from the history books when we #brexit! because there will no longer be a need to educate people on EU law making.

This guy makes his money from the EU, why would he cut off his own supply chain? I am tired of both Remain and Leave campaigns, and people putting their so called cards on the table when there is clear self interest and not a national one. I don't know yet if I am in or out and am really struggling to find unbiased points to convince me one way or another.

Shame Professor Dougan couldn't have set the tone for our politics - on both sides.

PS..all universities have a vested interest in remaining. This debate can be boiled down to culture and self interest. As an academic he has a vested interest in remaining in the EU.

Why oh why were people like professor Dougan not listened too and why were videos like this not put out on National TV so people got a better idea from people who are clearly much more knowledgeable on the subject than Johnson, Farage, Mogg, Tice, Francois and Baker!

2 years on.....and look at us now... dear dear...

Marty Caine and Alan Kenworthy. I suggest you swap phone numbers and go out for a drink. You agree with each other on many things. A general point, it is easy to be critical and degrade someone from a distance. I don't believe either of you would come out of a proper debate with an academic, on any of your chosen subjects, with any success. The really hard stuff, is not knocking down someone elses argument, it is building up your own. Things get accomplished not by those who knock down, but those who build up. Disagreeing with someone is much easier than formulating an alternative. So, by all means carry on your conversation, but do it in the light of your own short comings, not the short comings of others. I also consider it the sign of a real man, to admit his lack of knowledge, rather than to guff your way through an area you have only superficial knowledge of.

Thank you!

He did not mention that being outside the EU like Norway, we would pay less money to the EU, He made it sound it as if we were to continue to pay the same amount of money which is not the case, we would pay less money. He doesn't know Switzerland also accepts free movement of people, he is factually wrong about that as well. He did not speak about immigration, or the threat of Islamism and uncontrolled Islamic immigration, which has wrecked every country in history where this ideology stepped its feet into. There is so many wrong biased things about this video, its shocking. VOVE LEAVE!

This video also had 6.8 million views on Facebook. For those lamenting that this wasn't seen by enough people, this did go viral in the last week of the debate. However, we needed it before the postal votes, and basically in January before the debate started. All we got was two Etonian tories fighting over leadership, both now gone. You couldn't get this script through Hollywood...just too far fetched.

Lol how are people disliking this vid?? He is talking 'facts' he knows more than the rest of the idiots giving him a dislike will ever know. Stupid people offending this guys hard work!

Why have nearly 300 people "disliked" this? Could it be that what they really dislike is that the facts do not support their own distorted views?

Nothing else compares to the single market - not exactly like for like but the United States itself as a large sovereign state.

Much of what he said is now coming true. The government is now desperately trying to recruit specialists from the likes of Price Waterhouse Coopers because they don't have the manpower and expertise effectively negotiate our way out of the EU. Unfortunately all the experts we need are busy helping UK businesses manage the Brexit crisis.

God, just how patronising can an individual be..... just because its so, doesn't mean it has to be so.... another individual completely losing the point...... trade is a two way street (look it up), we import about twice as much as we export, are you really telling me that it isn't the best interest of those in the EU to trade with us on an even basis..... why would they mess that up

He accuses the leave campaign of "dishonesty on an industrial scale" but provides no evidence. His argument about sovereignty is flawed as is his glib dismissal of the power of the Commission. This is opinion presented as fact.

Why am I not surprised there are still people doubting the guys credibility in the comments? The guy has worked and studied the field for years. He literally works at a university - you don't work at a university without some pretty serious credentials. Is he immune to bias? No. But when compared to politicians who are always going to be trying to increase their own influence and media that just want to increase their viewings... I think he's a lot more credible by a long shot. He doesn't want or even need to lie because if he's wrong in his field he gets fired - his job in on the line. The media and politicians have proven time and again they do not suffer that same issue when they lie.

Here's my review/observations/concerns, as an ordinary Joe. Sovereignty - His argument is that we are sovereign and have ultimate control over all laws and edicts from EU. I can accept that to a point, but for me the concern is where the EU intends to go more than where it is now. We have said no to "ever closer union", so even if we remain we will ultimately become the outsiders, or alternatively have to genuinely trade our sovereignty to continue on the path with the EU. Legal Reviews - Undoubtedly, there will be a lot of crap to sort through, but avoiding work should not be an excuse to remain. I agree that leaving parliament to redefine law would take too long. That said, even if many laws are rushed through, do we not have the opportunity to optimise and improve these laws were any deficiencies are found? Aren't the current laws effectively a template for the laws we could adopt at least pending review ? What scope would we have to review and change any laws if we were to remain in the EU? UK Constitution - There is a new dimension to Scotland independence in a post-EU UK, but many of the aspects surrounding this were aired in the last referendum. New facets need to be discussed, but is it a radically different debate? In a way it is a bit backward - previously they wanted to devolve power from Westminster, now they want to dilute Scottish power to the EU. As for NI, I'm not informed enough about the complexities to form an opinion other than a solution could be found, I'm sure. EU Relationships - 2 years from activating Article 50 for the "divorce" to happen, but maybe a further 10 years needed to negotiate new terms with the EU and its members. Again, no one doubts that there is work to be done, but the world will keep on turning. Are we starting from scratch given that we are told we are one of the key players in the EU? Do we not already understand many of the issues that will need to be ironed out ? What about the "leverage" we gain one a clear position on membership is known? Trade - I do not think anyone here will say the the single market is a bad idea. It's the political strings that come attached that cause the problems. As for regulation, as it stands now we are perfectly in tune with the EU' requirements. It has taken Canada 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with EU but they were having to align from scratch. We are not. Over time these regulations will change and we would have to abide by them if want to remain in the single market. I can understand this. This is the argument against the Norway model. We pay, but have no power. It sounds bad, but I always ask myself if it is so bad, why don't Norway want to join the EU? As mentioned, the free movement argument takes the Norway model off the table straight away. The WTO "fallback" is not as good as a tariff free EU obviously, but the EU is not "free" in a real sense.. Bilateral deals will not be free, but is the existing deal really free if we have to pay to be a member and bend to the wider requirement of EU membership (i.e the intangibles)? So, kissing goodbye to the SM does present issues, but could these not be offset by having more flexibility than the EU as a whole when discussing deals with non-EU nations? There was the argument that we "bargain away" some of our markets within the EU to make deals with markets outside of the EU. If we leave we cannot use this strategy for non-EU trade, we would have to make the deals on new terms. Does this not swing the other way though. Non-EU markets would have a "new choice" where we could offer better deals than an existing deal with the EU. i.e. we would genuinely compete with the EU in certain fields where we currently don't do, if I understand it right. Summary - "Our current relationship with the EU is valuable..." For me the key word here is "current". The EU will undergo planned change and also have changes imposed upon it as its economies strain. How things currently are is not how they will stay. If there truly was a "status quo" option I would have a much harder time justifying a leave position. For now, I'm still out. The origins of the EU and its political goals just do not sit well with me.

An interesting analysis, but one lacking in some important respects. He focuses on his area of expertise and hence makes no comment on the political and cultural implications for our country of ever closer union. The fact that wages have been depressed for those lower down the social scale by mass immigration, for instance, or the fact that it is impossible for the government to plan services adequately with no foreknowledge of the scale of immigration, which has a major impact on all of us. He fails to touch on the political ramifications of "ever closer union" , and how the evolution of a European Superstate might impact upon our traditional freedoms given the significant philosophical and practical differences in our legal system compared with those of the other 27 countries in the EU, despite claiming the law as a speciality. He made no mention of the comparative failure of the EU to grow it economy compared with other international markets, and failed to deal with the contention that the EU machine is incapable of updating its structures to make them less inefficient and costly. Perhaps he thinks these aspects were too trivial to include given the time allowed, but to many in this country are of paramount importance. So what you have been presented with is a high level summary of one relatively narrow narrow aspect of our membership with the EU with the implied suggestion that this is all you need to make an informed decision on how to vote. I suggest that it would serve us well to look beyond the economic in the short to medium term, and envisage what political union would look like for a country such as ours, and make your decision based on that. Economies can go up and down, and do, for reasons that are difficult to explain. Freeing ourselves from a political union, especially one that could develop totalitarian tendencies over which we would have little control (despite the legal niceties), would be no cake walk.

What has this expert to say about the financial crisis? Greece? The EU's lack of ability to deal with the refugee crises in a human and fair way?

The media misrepresenting the facts? I never would have believed it! It would be valuable to see this man in a propper debate with an expert from the Brexit side. This referendum has sorely lacked factual debates. How can we vote on such an important issue without the facts?

The comments on here call to mind the old adage...."I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you" There are non so blind as those that will not see.

And wot will he be doing if we come out ? Some one wont's to keep his job me thinks out out out

What I never understood from the Brexiters is the argument of "its undemocratic! they have appointed (not elected) people in office!". Completely ignoring the fact that the exact same can be said for any european government including the UK. What I also found typical is that data showed that most people who were leavers were simultaneously against scottish independance. And also that the more educated a person was, the more likely they were to be a remainer. The whole referendum was based on falsehoods if you ask me. And ignorance sadly won.

It's now almost September 2018. Have the rights of EU27/UK citizens in each other's countries been resolved yet? NI border? The incompetence is staggering. Even Vote Leave said "we will negotiate before triggering any legal processes"

He compares people who do not believe in the magical virtues of the EU superstate to creationists and evolution skeptics, yet he whines about people doubting his credentials. We really are at the bottom of the barrel when remain only has mocking, slander and contempt for the voters left up their sleeve.

still undecided, this guy has done his work/talk/analysis for the UK government, BBC... the very same people that dictate what we hear & the way we should vote/live/think... so how on earth is this guy's views impartial.

There's a complicated overlap between sovereignty and power/will of the people, and to imply that one legal definition of sovereignty is conclusive of the whole issue is misleading. Consider, for example, Scotland. There's a consensus that any 'Yes' vote in a referendum entitles Scotland to leave the UK. Thus, there's a theoretical case to be made that any 'sovereignty' of the UK over Scotland is merely ceded/conditional by Scotland subject to the Scottish people's vote at any time. I'd argue that the more difficult it is to get any 'lent' sovereignty back, the more de facto (effective) sovereignty is ceded. As with the Scottish analogy, just because we are having this referendum now and Parliament can enact a Brexit, doesn't mean we're fully sovereign for practical purposes, and as understood historically. Arguably, our tradition in Britain is that the 'supreme power' (definition of sovereignty) rests ultimately with the people via the ballot box. Short of Brexit, we (the people) have two main levers over European policy. Firstly, voting for MEPS. This is a very weak lever as our MEPs are a small fraction of the total (to be even smaller as the EU expands). Secondly, voting for MPs and thereby a government which has influence via the Council of Ministers. The professor is correct to point out that the key role of the Council of Ministers has been played down by those keen to slate the EU as 'undemocratic' with no nuance. However, in our UK democracy we vote for a government with an active mandate in our interests, that we can hold to account. As I understand it, in the EU it is the EU commission (alone) that can propose legislation, and as an independent body it's unclear what the balance is between its duty to the EU project, and its duty to the people of the EU - who cannot hold it directly to account. We do undoubtedly retain significant practical sovereignty in the opt-outs which various governments have secured. But our UK system is such that it is very hard for one government to bind successive governments. Hence Cameron's negotiated agreement is only a temporary measure. Given that reneging on any individual ceding of sovereignty (i.e. securing an opt-out of something you've previously agreed to) seems to be almost unheard of within the EU, it seems that over time the changes in de facto sovereignty can only go one way. Yes, Cameron has an agreement relating to 'ever closer union'. But *I would urge you to look up the qualifications of Dr Gunnar Beck, and the recent article he co-authored entitled A critical view of the EU deal, from Germany to Britain*. Also see his comments in today's article in the Telegraph entitled "German court capitulates to imperial ECJ in landmark ruling"... And while I'm suggesting articles, see also on the BBC site today: "Trade curbs 'foolish' if UK votes Leave, says German industry". Finally, to relate back back to my point about how difficult it is to get any 'lent' sovereignty back, in my view the more we have been threatened with harsh consequences and reprisals for leaving the EU project, the more it has felt for many people that the level of de facto sovereignty handed to the EU has indeed been substantial, and this is our last chance to assert our true wishes (most people would ideally just want a free trade area, and Brexit is closer as a concept to this than the current/future EU project) before the penalties for leaving become prohibitive - i.e. before EU becomes effectively on the road to being one large nation state. And aren't powerful nation states supposed to be the problem we're trying to avoid here?

Holy shit, he just repeats again and again that he's right and the other side is wrong, with nothing but appeals to authority and legislation, as well as smug derision to the other side. The fact that so many people are falling for this is maddening.

All I needed to make my decision was an understanding of how the EU works - and here it is . Thank you Professor Dougan.

To remain is in the "national interest"? Or in the interest of a few (super) rich/global companies? Explain who will benefit? I doubt that the thousands of lobbyists in Brussels care for the lower or middle class.

Is there a transcript of this talk available?

If ever a vid should go 'viral' this is it.

At last a voice of reason.

For any interested this blog includes Prof Dougan's thoughts on migration & the EU. benrpreston.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/what-is-the-eu/

As students we are taught to look at an argument from all sides, to go in with an unbiased opinion and obtain facts from both positions and present the conclusion. If I was to present this professor's argument in the form of a thesis or dissertation, I would recieve either, a very poor mark or a fail altogether. Why? Because this professor's opinion was already firmly in place before he researched and presented his speech. As this is his specialised subject, he will also be aware of some of the major flaws in the E.U manfesto and yet he did not include them. I have no doubt the facts he presented was are genuine, but I can not give credit to a speech that is solely based on one side of an argument without the speaker addressing both positive and negative from both sides. This is just another biast opinion from a professional with a firm mindset.

Excellent, honest, enlightening speech.

Looks like the British people have said FU to EU!