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.
The more intelligent and well-reasoned you are, the more important it is to be objective, balanced and polite to the other side when putting forward your arguments. You have this duty because huge numbers of people are accepting what you say largely by deferring to your authority. Yes it's useful information in this video, and a lot more credible than what many have put forward. But it can be true as far as it goes, yet misrepresent the full picture. I recently left a detailed comment myself - don't think youtube allow links, so anyone interested will have to change view from 'Top comments'; to 'Newest first'; above to read it. I quote a key EU law expert who is just as credible as Prof Dougan. Also, can I just say I abhor any comments here that have been (overly) disrespectful or abusive towards Prof Dougan. (I added the 'overly' in brackets because I don't think people should have to respect his allegation of 'dishonesty on an industrial scale' by the Leave campaign. In my view they are entitled to *politely* call him out on it *if* they are able to provide reasonable counter-arguments to those he bases his allegation on.)
The clearest example of hyperbole I've heard in this campaign is the phrase "dishonesty on an industrial scale" and one of the most blatant untruths is "Every major stakeholder across every major sector of our economy and society does not see a problem with our EU membership." This is a very poor lecture.
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.
+Glen Sykes he's a professor isn't he, not a private lawyer? Not being sarcastic, genuine question. So I wouldn't have thought he was in the list of people to get contracts. You're right I haven't watched it. But I wasn't criticising anything he said.Watching it now.
Guys, I was simply making the point that he has nothing to gain by saying what he says any more than any other citizen. The "Leave" campaign would normally say, "Oh, well, he has a lot to lose if the UK leaves the EU, so you can't believe him."
+James Amoroso MD openly admits in the video that EU law has been his life long work, should we leave the EU his work will have been for nothing, I would say that is quite an impelling reason to want to remain IN, wouldn't you?
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.
"Did he mention that many Countries voted against Europe" - not clear what you are talking about. "forced to vote again to get the right vote" - still not clear. Were guns involved? That's how you force someone to vote right...? I don't think so. So perhaps you are alluding to another act of democratic expression, but really, I can't tell what you are talking about. But it sounds serious. "The Euro Project is a Dictatorship." SHIT. It IS serious!! Dictatorships are bad aren't they?!? That explains the use of guns to force people into voting. Crikey. "Every intelligent persons knows this". I hate it when I don't get the memos about important shit. I'd like to think of myself as slightly more intelligent than the nearest block of Gouda, but really, no one has told me about this dictatorship thing. I honestly thought that the Council of Europe, comprised of elected politicians from each of the member states, came together to decide what the EU should do. The EU is supposed to be full of civil servants who take orders to get things done. I thought they were like, "there to help us". I had no idea that they were operating a dictatorship, coercing us to do their bidding. Wow. They are going to be mad as hell when they realise that one of the sovereign nations within the EU has allowed the people to democratically express an opinion about whether to remain IN the dictatorship. I'm going to keep my eye open for all those tanks painted in blue with the yellow stars on, making sure we all follow the dictator. Oh, hang on. All dictatorships need an actual dictator don't they...? You know, a Mussolini, a Gaddafi, a Stalin, a Saddam... Well, I suppose the Internet is democratic too. Anyone can express an opinion, even if it lacks actual "co-herence".
So if I try to disagree you will paint me as bigoted and a hater. I don't necessarily agree with what weaverspell has said, but are you not being a bigoted ass by making the comment "I can imagine there will be a whole army of haters attacking this, for reasons of bigotry and post-truth indignation." Little hypocritical, do you not think?
Not really Steve... "A whole army of haters will attack & their reasons will be bigotry and post-truth indignation". I think these people have nothing to offer other than a mistaken sense of nostalgia and self-importance. Other people may want to raise serious points about what the Professor has spoken of. They may do so citing other fields of significance, as justification for their opinions. They too could be clear, insightful, honest, nuanced, erudite even. But on balance mate, I very much doubt it. As I see it, it all falls down to what we understand by the terms "bigot" and "hater". In my mind, these does not equate to a person having a contrary opinion to the Professor; instead, it means to me, a person who will not accept the validity of any argument which differs from their own, no matter how strong, fact-based, evidential it is. BTW, all said and done, I am a hypocrite. Now tell me that you aren't and perhaps we can have a polite argument about it ;-)
Well I am glad it has been cleared up. I made the distinction between your comment and hypocrisy, as your point did suggest all comments would be considered as bigoted and hateful. I am delighted you would consider clear and insightful points that support alternative arguments. I personally am having difficulty finding clear and concise arguments to support either. I am glad I could help you find the path to righteousness, you are welcome!
Sorry I was not more clear in the first place Steve. Not only am I a hypocrite, but I'm also not a very good communicator. And for that, I apologise. It seems the decent thing to do. I think one of the things that genuinely bothers me about this whole debate, is that I have tried and tried to find papers, articles, videos which are able to articulate a genuinely worthy benefit of the Brexit argument. I worry that in not finding any convincing arguments that undermine my own opinions, that I might be guilty of the sort of bigotry or short-sightedness that I have previously railed against. It's easy to find material we agree with but that only reinforces prejudice. It's much better for improving our ideas, to find evidence which disproves our convictions. I've waded through so much short-sighted ranting, misunderstandings, falsifications, half-baked assumptions, as to find this bit of a depressing exercise at times. I might come across as an arrogant twerp, but really, I'm looking for high quality info and find the polarisation in this debate a little bit infantile.
He's listening to another lecture. The lecture is called "How to reply to good youtube questions within 24 hours". Hopefully he'll pass that lecture....
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.
+Chris PT It may sound like, I have just based my vote on listening to one expert. I have been to number of talks in London, who are all experts and academics in the field of EU law and politics. They all make perfect sense. I'm casting my vote on what I know and not on what I don't know. I stopped listening to the politicians long ago and the so called experts.
I agree Kuldip, he should have been on the TV debates. Great to hear you listened to the experts with a reasoned argument rather than finger in the air logic. Well done, please vote today.
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.
I couldn't agree more. Regardless of whether individuals are in, out or undecided, this is a far more civilised way to go about things than the shambolic bruhaha in the media and parliament.
+Chris PT so what you're claiming is that prof Michael Dougan has been teaching his law students at Liverpool university bogus information ? If that was the case then surely his students would all be failing ? Yet he is one the most highly respected in his field , so I'm more inclined to believe everything he's saying
kirkd81 You know that's not what I claimed. There's a grey area between undoubted expertise relating to non-controversial 'information', and political opinion. He's not a professor specialising in politics, and even if he was, they have hugely differing theories/models of sovereignty.
That is why they have been steering our children to education to indoctrinate them to the EU. Not because they get jobs after ...we have little employment in the UK. The EU are asset stripping the UK. We were the 3rd richest nation in the world in 1972. We are the 5th we give more yo the EU than we receive. All our own money. The EU is a ponzi scheme on the tax payers
You might want to look at this, Chris. Guy from a neutral standpoint checked Brexit and Remain quoted facts - and found that the former are mostly lies or misinformation. There's your proof. medium.com/im-trying-to-fact-check-brexit/fact-checking-brexit-the-conclusion-c1f56ba4cb70#.53aux5a6a
Hi Chris. Yes it was a reply to your earlier comment. YT doesn't always drop them in the right place. But I wasn't comparing your expert with our expert. This "neutral guy" is coming from a different and very interesting angle: he set out specifically to check the facts quoted in both the Brexit and Remain campaigns. He did indeed find dishonesty on a large scale in the former - hence his work can be seen as justifying Prof Dougan's claim.
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."
So your completely ok with the UK public not able to decide 60% of our laws at present & not able to elect or get rid of the dictators that decides our laws for us? Oh & that by 2050 they openly want to be in a position where they decide 100% of all laws in all the countries in the EU (likely 50+ by then if they have there own way)! That would mean getting rid of democracy completely & having no parliament or prime minister just an impartial monarchy. They want an EU super-state where absolutely everything is decided by EU super elites from a round table in Brussels. That's a true dictatorship, kind of reminds me of Hitler & his plans before he committed suicide! Advice for you is to listen to alternative media & mainstream media then decide what you believe instead of just mainstream media lies, it is clearly brainwashing you. Luckily we have voted out & now this corrupt tyranny establishment that calls itself the EU is now doomed. We can co-operate with countries as friends without having to be part of a corrupt super-state! :-)
Ok a couple of things: 1: You've completely invalidated all your arguments by breaking Godwins law, so there's really no need for me to continue, but I will anyway on to... 2: Your arguments about an EU Superstate is hyperbole with no basis in fact. 3: No I'm not happy with the way the EU is run. I was hoping the referendum would be a catalyst for change within it as are many other member states who also feel the EU isn't giving them a fair deal. The end result is no one has won anything here, we've all lost.
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.
WHEN WILL THE UKIP TROLLS STOP LYING, TO UNDERMINE ANYONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR DISHONEST, FEAR MONGERING, HATE FILLED PROPAGANDA? ukip have done no such thing
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?
If you disagree with his facts then show us where he is wrong. Attacking the person instead of arguing with the factual details is lazy and has become a feature of the Leave campaign. I do hope there are not too many conspiracy theorists out there but rather more with an open mind willing to listen to and consider the views of others.
Those who support Remain do so because they believe that Britain's future will be better within the EU. Wanting to remain within the EU and being proud of your own country are not mutually exclusive. All members of the EU are democracies not dictatorships. Moreover, the EU has played a vital role in encouraging the former eastern block countries to transform themselves into liberal democracies following the break up of the Soviet Union. There are members of Britain's elite on both sides of the referendum campaign. What are Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford), Michael Gove and other prominent leaders of the Leave campaign if not part of the elite?
The "elite" argument is on the same page as the apoplexy I've seen from some regarding Richard Branson's pro-Remain comments: "How dare a billionaire that doesn't live in this country tell us how to vote". You can but cough politely and point to Rupert Murdoch to illustrate the deep irony.
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?
I see, so you don't have an opinion on issues such as sovereignty? How about people like you don't vote in the referendum (or elections)?! Simply leave it to the ''experts'' to decide for you. Just look at what would have happened in 1992 if we'd listened to the ''experts'' who were telling the UK not to leave the ERM. And then again in 2000...the ''experts'' were telling us it would be a disaster if the UK didn't join the Euro. Thankfully, the ''experts'' were ignored...if they hadn't been the UK would now be a basket case.
Migration does not affect the rich with regard to the cost that migrants drain the public purse . Migrants will NEVER own 1/2 or 1 million pound houses or live on/in vast acres of Britains green and land pleasant land If you want to be ruled ultimately by France and Germany VOTE YES.
He says he has no idea what will happen if we leave the EU, other than that it will mean lots of bureaucratic upheaval (rewriting laws, renegotiating trade deals e etc.) He doesn't say this will be a disaster from which we won't recover. He isn't playing a game of rhetoric; he is just putting some of the nonsense straight (i.e. we are a sovereign state and no amount of Leave claiming otherwise makes that not the case), and pointing out that claims about what will happen with regards the economy and immigration if we leave are utterly specualative. Why would you disbelieve him? Sure experts get it wrong, but if my doctor (particularly if my doctor is a world leading expert in her particular field) gives me a treatment I am probably, on balance, going to take it rather than rely on information I've found on alternative cures written by charlatans online. What he says is that the claims leave are making are based on untruths, and he gives some balance to that. He isn't making a massive emotional case for remain. You can watch the video and decide on balance you'd like to leave. Fair enough. But the people contradicting or undermining his points on the basis they have read something different (presumably in the the leave campaign literature that he discredits and evidences as false) So I don't understand your point. Also: experts were by no means unanimously in support of the UK joining the Euro (and if we had, the situation with that currency would be different now anyway, for better or worse - so who knows who was right?).
I don't disagree that it is lower income earners who overwhelmingly compete with economic migrants for jobs, and who feel the effects of immigration more keenly. As he points out though, there is no guarantee that leaving the EU will end freedom of movement because any trade deal we renegotiate is likely to be based on trade deals with the already existing non-EU member states (e.g. Norway) and therefore will very probably include freedom of movement. Additionally, I can't see why you would think businesses are just going to stop employing low income overseas labour. They won't. I expect either we will move to a points based system and see low waged EU labour replaced that way, or a large number of business will relocate out of the UK. Anyway, vote how you want of course, but better to do so based on facts rather than fantasies about no more migration to the UK if we go.
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!
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.
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?'
How about call to authority - he speaks well, means well, but is totally disingenuous - he's the establishment. And what about his referring to the creation evolution debate, what fallacy is that? He could easily be the creationist here actually considering free markets/free trade are closely related to evolution, in fact are the same thing - same principles; the EU stands for a creator, a god, hands on control. Like all species, globalise or die; you can stay in your corner, you may keep it up with Greece, Spain and France ... but you won't keep up with the rest of the world; they (China and Asia) will take what you are missing out on. They are.
I only got 5 minutes into his speech and his speech was full of fallacies. Appeal to pity, appeal to authority, and a bunch of faulty comparison fallacies.
While true, he did not simply say 'vote stay because I'm an expert', he only used his background and experience to give some context as to why you should bother listening to him at all. He then gave a detailed and reasoned discussion covering both sides. It turns out that his experience has lead him to believe that staying is preferable, and he backs this up with a convincing argument. This is more than anyone on the leave campaign has bothered to do.
Anyone who earns money from being related to the EU is gonna vote remain because every argument about remaining in the EU is about MONEY. It's all about MONEY. MONEY MONEY. The big corporations, The rich ruling Elites, The banks, The finance houses, etc etc etc,. Hence why the free movement of people is much valued by them, because its about the free movement of cheap labour. In other words people from poorer countries often migrate to work longer hours for less money and so keeping wages low and enhancing profits for rich big business. Why wouldn't they love it. POWER and UNACCOUNTABLY always leads to GREED and CORRUPTION. It is a fact of human nature. If a human being has power, like the members of the EU commission, but with no accountability and no danger of ever losing their position, they always end up becoming corrupt. Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely, just like Sepp Blatter and FIFA. If trade deals are so important why is Britain swamped with Chinese and Japanese goods. There is no trade deal with those countries. THIS GUY HAS AN AGENDA.
I guess you didn't get to the bit where he says 'if we leave the EU it will be so complicated that people like me with be kept in work for a very long time'
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.
I love how when greece was asking for its multiple bailouts we all thought they where reckless and demanded they behave more, I love how we all highlighted how they never should have been allowed to join to begin with because they had fiddled their books to meet the requirements and now because the EU stepped up and demanded things in order to give them the bailouts they needed we use it as evidence against the EU. Yes by all means we should have just kept giving Greece money indefinitely without demanding they change anything at all. What should have happened with Greece is it should have been kicked out of the EU it NEVER met the actual requirements for membership to begin with and fiddled their books to make it look like they did but instead of kicking them out the EU put a list of demands down to justify letting them stay in and now because of it the EU is the bad bad people. Greece fell apart because of the running of the Greece government and time after time they got a bailout at the expense of the EU and other Nations and time after time they proved they could not be trusted to run things properly because time after time they came running asking for more money. Using Greece as evidence against the EU is like using a mass murderer as evidence against gun control.
Allowing Greece in to the EU was not the mistake, allowing Greece in to the Euro Zone was. How can the Greek economy be expected to perform like that of the highly industrialised countries like Germany or Holland? This was the folly. The bail outs were a nice little earner for the middlemen like Goldman Sachs who knew full well that Greece was likely to default and took out an elaborate form of insurance to make sure that they cashed in either way. Greece is as much a victim as it is culpable, although the traditional neo-liberal spin on it is that they are feckless and not worthy of sympathy. Germany's conduct toward Greece has been quite an eye opener.
Greece was ridden roughshod over by the banking sector, they (Greece) didn't get the vast majority of the "bailout" money it simply went back to the banks that had loaned them too much in the first place. This creates a death spiral economy. The same as the Weimar republic. Money paid as the supposed bailout largely went to pay off the debt rather than bolster the Greek economy but they were loaned the money so the debt went up not down. In Weimar it was money for war reparations but the same effect - print money to pay off debts - money goes outside the economy in war reparations, economy sinks, print more money. There's more going on than just EU at this point and, yes, the EU were wholly wrong to allow it to happen but not wholly responsible for it. None of this alters the underlying trade agreement advantage we get from our membership of the EU or the chaos that would ensue us leaving.
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!
My question to you would be: how can you "firmly believe" something you have a difficult time explaining? If you can't explain something simply, you haven't understood it thoroughly. This isn't an attack, just something to think about.
The only reason you aren't resented as an immigrant in France is the money and spending power you have taken there. If you were trying to enter the UK without those, you would only be welcome if you had some worthwhile skill to offer. Many migrants do not have that. Seaside resorts in the south coast of the UK are teeming with that kind of migrant, and they are a huge problem in those towns, which the locals have to cope with while the enlightened .intelligentsia eslewhere cling to their specious philanthropy.
@JohnSampson: How can you say the MEPs are unelected when they all are, including by the UK? You have also completely forgotten the European Council (which includes the British Prime Minister who was elected by the UK electorate) which can veto any law if the European Parliament and the European Council do not agree. The European Commission in fact has the least power, even though it is responsible for proposing laws - because both the Parliament and the Council approve laws (or not). Have a quick read here: europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm.
We ahve veto on a number of things. You MAY be right on getting stronger T&C if let back in but can be assured no rebate from the membership rates :( Want to risk paying MORE ? PS, they are us "unelected" as our Westminster government and Holyrood. Your voting power comment is the rationale many used in the YES campaign for the Scottish Independence ref :(
So if the UK could exert total and absolute over the EU, that would be fine for you. Unfortunately, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy. No doubt you would also not accept the UK Government because it was voted by constituencies other than the one where you live.
preparing you for your new appointed leaders every step of the way lol oh dear the sheeple.... Please wake up Shaun, we only have 1 day left, and this clown is looking after his future job, not your best interests.
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.
Not been used because it would of been picked apart be facts and reason. Something the remain camp don't want ...it would off crumbled their campaign and shown them to be a fabrication of the truth. That is why Cameron would NOT be date the leave camp. Left that to Nick Clegg and he was shown to be a liar of the super copper EU. We survived before the EU and we WILL survive after. Like so many nations have and do today.
...well, as well as his 20 years experience and a PHD in the relevant field, he also includes citations to studies in his speech. How do you conclude a fallacy based argument? More importantly, where are your credentials, arguments and evidence?
...well, as well as his 20 years experience and a PHD in the relevant field, he also includes citations to studies in his speech. How do you conclude "like what"? More importantly, where are your credentials, arguments and evidence?
***** Really? I didn't see this on any media before the vote. I found this after the vote from someone on twitter who has a blog about political stuff.
+WeirdestWolf it did but not big enough, few million facebook likes and about 180,000 views on here. I saw it before the vote and had to talk two people I work with out of voting out just for a laugh. I wonder how many others voted out thinking they were just sticking two fingers up to the politicians.
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.
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!
Immigration is a media invented problem??? I am genuinely interested to know where exactly you live. Please please please get in a cab and ask the driver to drive you through East London, Birmingham and Luton. Then tell me immigration is an invented problem. No doubt you are a typical silver spoon fed sheltered individual.
Ridiculous. David Cameron went on Question Time on Sunday and said we'll never get a good deal with the EU from outside because Canada tried and failed to, and they faired better than others who have tried. So basically he admitted that from within the EU we currently have a crap trade deal with Canada and the rest of the world and there is nothing we can do about it (apart from leave)
+BatsAndBadgers because if we did Cameron wouldn't have the excuse of saying that 52% of migration is still from outside the EU. I think it hasn't been clamped down on for that reason alone. Wont it be great when we can turn down Lithuanian fruit pickers in favour of Australian school teachers
Wont it be great when much of the UK horticultural industry has to shut down for want of eastern Europeans who want to do the jobs. Wont it be great when a substantial part of the UK care home industry runs into acute staffing issues because they can no longer get the staff. But you won't mind wiping your ageing parents posteriors will you when there is no-one else left to do this for you? I tried out the Aussie points system when in Oz in May and it was pointed out repeatedly that Australia has double the level of immigration that the UK has. Further, when I floated the "Anglosphere" suggestion favoured by Brexiters, I was actually laughed at. The response (that is repeatable) went along the lines of "haven't you guys noticed that this is 2016 and not 1916; we are no longer a colony but a modern Pacific nation". The second point made was that Australia's principal trading partners are now China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and the USA. Britain, owing to the self-caused destruction of much of our manufacturing sector, has a minute traded goods relationship now with Australia which appears to consist of JLR 4x4 cars, BBC television programmes and Carr's water biscuits. Beyond that, I had rather thought that the flow of professional personnel tended to be from the UK and to Australia - particularly in the medical profession where junior doctors etc have had enough of Tory victimisation of public sector workers and they have the skills that enable them to stick up two fingers to Hunt.
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
Gove's comments about experts were the 2nd most irresponsible intervention in this debate, behind the disgraceful Farage poster. We only have to look at how people with knowledge are being smeared and dismissed to see the hostile climate he's exacerbated. God help us if he becomes PM.
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
+Chris PT not exactly a fair comparison , for a start Michael Dougan isn't part of any campaign , he's neutral in that he has criticised both campaigns for spreading false claims & statistics , he merely pointed out that the leave campaign have done it to far worse extent . I have been researching the debate with an open mind and I still cannot find anyone else more qualified than this man to present a decent argument for leaving the eu , there are little to no facts or sources to back up any of it , I even saw a leave poster with Keith Chegwin on it , it's become a bit parody now , 100% remain !! Unless this man or anyone else with similar credentials can convince me in the next 12 hours , unlikely as I'll be sleeping through 8 of them , night
+KnewItAll of course he says he lays his cards on the table and that he believes in his professional opinion that we should remain and he's voting remain , he also makes it clear that he impartial to either campaign party , now there's a difference there , he disassociates himself from the campaign party's , the whole point of the video is to explain why it's better to remain. As I said previously , I haven't seen anyone with the same credentials in this field oppose him or what he says , he also states that if we were to leave he would have enough work to keep him busy for many years , so he's not trying to protect his job , I don't know why people can't just accept that a professor in law & a man with phd's in Eu law is being truthful and honest here , after all he does teach this to thousands of students
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!
Because listening to an EU funded, biased (admitted himself), middle class "expert" doesn't mean anything. Please educate yourself and understand just because he is a professor, doesn't make him factually accurate. There are parts to his speech that can be literally ripped apart
middle class i hate that being used. This working class middle class divide is ridiculous. we are supposed to voting for collective futures here. Dont follow the herd based on which class they are in.
He misleads. Hell the whole sovereignty issue was already covered by the BBC by Paxman. I really doubt a professor of EU law is going to hold a larger influence than a well respected reporter known by many years and a household name for years. If you go and get a basic textbook on Public law, you will discover that we do cede our sovereignty. I made a comment arguing why this is the case somewhere previously in this comment section. Cba to go find it, but the TL;DR version is that yes we have total legally sovereignty, but that is meaningless since it has to be viewed in a political context. At any time we could rip up the 1972 EC act, but that would mean taking an action that would require a referendum itself as the political decision is far greater than the legal decision. I think the example given by my public law lecturer sometime ago serves very good for this anology. Parliament could make a law saying it is illegal for people to smoke in france. However, that is meaningless as we do not have the political power to start arresting french men on the streets of paris. It is equally meaningless to say we have retained sovereignty, because we can leave the EU. E.U Law overrules national law, and the CJEU has stated this on numerous occasions and it has been followed in national courts. Just take a look at the Solange cases where the German Constitutional Court bends over backwards, because any finding against the legitimacy of EU law would cause political consequences that might themselves jeopardise the German political system.
Go read up what sovereignty is, then go read find your local library look for a public law text book, also written by Professors, read the Chapters on sovereignty then read the chapters on the EU. Even further to this, go read some Dworkin, Kelsen, Austin, Finnis, Hart, Fuller and more about legal systems and what law is. All of this knowledge is publicly available. He misleads when he says that we have not lost sovereignty, as much as he misleads when he makes a big point about having to renegotiate all the trade deals, when trade deals themselves are a red herring. . I'm not going to start making time stamps to analyse his words instead I'm making a refutation of the points he is making. If you are unable to link my refutations and the points he are making then you are failing to comprehend the video or my wall of text. TL:DR Go read my other comment somewhere in this list of comments cause I'm too lazy to CNP it for a third time, and don't want to spam the same comment.
This is really great. Thank you Professor Michael Dougan. It might be worthwhile to make a short version of this - perhaps with animation. It's really important that this is seen & heard widely.
that it takes years, decades to negotiate trade agreements. that one of the biggest issues are the millions of UK citizens in the EU, and millions of EU citizens in the UK. How will that work out? Think for a second.
It sounds like you don't understand lectures. You are suffering from cognitive bias. Look up cognitive bias... it's a way to educate yourself in your failings.
I wonder who would be prepared to trade with a country that has a declining credibility and no proper processes in place? Sure, there will be trade, coming at a price. Some might see it as their chance to dominate negotiations.
@@AndyT1 I'm watching this in the not too distant future (compared to when your comment was made) and Britain is leaving the EU in 3 days, on 31st January 2020. All I can say is it's about time we left this corrupt, self-serving, anti-democratic union. Good riddance to the European Union.
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.
This isn't about the short term impact surely ? This is about the long term view of where the EU is going which given its progress to date doesn't take much imagination to work out. The long term impact of leaving seems to be that the UK would be a little bit less well off if it leaves and trades under worse case WTO rules. But given that the same negative forecasts made when the UK didn't join the Euro turned out to be nonsense, it's reasonable to take all of this negativity with a pinch of salt. It isn't possible to know what will happen in the future because it depends entirely on political agreements and world events. How will things look if the EU doesn't sort out its Eurozone problems and the whole lot collapses ? Will make Brexit look like a walk in the park.
Joseph Marino - "Insulting someone for presenting research is not an intellectual or civilised way and getting your point across." Neither is insulting those who disagree with you, as the professor does in his video.
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"
This tells you very little about how the EU actually works. Very selective biased presentation with little real information of any value, and pretty disingenuous with it. But since you can't be bothered to find out about the EU from the numerous other sources available you wouldn't know that. Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you can't be biased in your opinion and skew your argument to suit your opinion, all dressed up under the guise of "I'm an expert".
It tells you a lot about the EU works. Perhaps you just didn't understand it. Or maybe, because you yourself are biased, you just aren't willing to accept facts. By all means provide your unbiased facts to demonstrate how this isn't the case?
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.
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
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.
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....
Jason Wells I assume you're one of those people calling everyone who voted out an old bigot, and don't understand the irony in doing so. Thanks for the constructive contribution to the discussion, though.
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
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.
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!
I was going to vote to leave the EU and then i made myself do a little of my own research before the vote day… and found this video before i voted… 24 minutes later I had completely changed my mind… This guy has got every single thing spot on! He should run for Parliament, he would / should become prime minister tomorrow! This video needs to go viral as every year that goes past, things get worse outside of the EU!
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.
No, listen to what he says. At 3.00. "In case you think I'm being biased and one sided, this is what we teach our first and second year undergraduates. It is factual and evidence based."
Yeah because that's really kept secret... Like its not on the front page of his university profile or anything is it? Don't know if Nigel Farage has been whispering in your ear about what the Jean Monet program is but it sounds like you've been fed more propaganda by the leave side about it. Its no more shadowy than the fact that organisations exist for promoting the research of Biology. Is pointing out that the speaker is a 'biologist' and thus 'biased' say anything? Is it more a case that if you want to know about how the EU actually operates you listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about - which is more than can be said for many of the leave campaigners.
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.
Question shouldn't be "who should I listen to?" It should be "is what he's saying correct?" Because he's biased, it doesn't mean that he only said "I'll lose money if we Brexit, please don't leave".
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. UKIP TROLLS JUST KEEP ON LYING. VOTE LEAVE = VOTE LIE
+Gary Adlen I am certainly no UKiP supporter being a person of colour and it is telling that you should raise this racist spectre in response to a quite simple observation; shame on you!
This is clearly a man who has made our relationship with the EU his living for many years. A vote to leave from him would be like a turkey voting for Christmas. Oh sorry, I forgot we're not supposed to mention Turkey until June 24th.
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
Do you even know how trade agreements work? Of course EU business will want to trade with us. UK leaving will potentially make trading with us more difficult for them as much as it would for us.
Oh really ? So other countries would magically decide to sell good to the UK a cheaper prices ? Or somehow the UK not part of the single market would not apply import tariffs ? Seems like you have no clue what you are talking about.
And your qualifications in EU/UK law are what? And which University do you teach at on that subject? And what specific mis-information are speaking of?
Saying nyah, nyah, nyah does not qualify as reasoned argument. If you have some substantive issues with Professor Dougan's assessment, then spell them out.
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?
I'm wondering Chris, how relevant is my argument that the UK can feed itself as proposed in 1975 and while 60% of our electricity comes from 8 other countries, they're not EU countries and we've had to create trade deals with those countries to supply our needs showing that we can form trade deals where and when we have to?
+KnewItAll I'd say the most relevant argument is the net benefits of free international trade in the longer term (for all countries that participate in it). Whereas the EU is protectionist towards the rest of the world, because of the dominance of powerful groups that often have different interests to the UK national interest - or even to the interests of Europe overall.
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.
He certainly compares a future outside The Eu with the status quo, rather than the future outside the EU with the future inside it (which we must decide upon)
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.
I think what he's basically saying is that leaving would result in a logistical nightmare as so many of our laws and trading arrangements have such strong EU influence. I guess the question is whether you are happy letting those in power (in the UK) totally rewrite the laws of the land as they think fit, and renegotiate all trade agreements around the World. And whether you are happy to fly into the unknown and wait several years - possibly decades - 'to see how things pan out'. If our economy and legal system was so robust and strong, and our leaders so clued up on everything, then maybe leave is a logical option. However our leaders seem to make a mess of everything - even their campaigning - so I for one don't have faith in their competence or abilities to deal with such massive undertakings, and certainly not without the help from other member states. That in itself is enough for me to choose 'Remain'.
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.
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.
Thank god somebody is concentrating on their area of expertise......it's a bit of a novelty in this campaign. Leaving the EU is an unnecessary gamble, certain to cause economic hardship. The idea that if we stay in we are doomed forever to further integration and all manner of troubles is conjecture and speculation. However if 10 years down the line this comes to be the case....lets have another referendum. Simples.
"develop totalitarian tendencies" You make a good point. Just because it's seen as 'leftist' and only a little bit totalitarian now, it doesn't mean that it will remain that way.
If you think were gonna have another referendum in 10 years your mad, it doesn't work like this. We'd be talking about lifetime before going through all this again, lets be honest.
Only sensible comment I've seen here. Different people rank different areas of this debate differently. He clearly ranks economic factors above all else, but the same really cannot be said for the average British family or worker.
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?
You won't get that unfortunately. Last night we saw Cameron have the last say on Question Time, and given a very easy time by an obviously stage managed audience, with Dimbleby the only one there pretending to give Cameron a hard time. Sovereignty was not mentioned and Cameron was not challenged on his making economics the main issue, which it is not. If you want facts and figures look at William Dartmouth's book on Trade and the EU. and the precise figures on Britain's lack of influence in the EU, and why it will diminish further.
You won't get an expert from the Brexit side because Brexit is a pipe dream that no one has yet experienced. With any luck it will stay as a pipe dream.
And an independent Ingerland would deal with the refugees any better? The whole point is that the Leave folks don't want anyone else entering their green and rainy land...
It's interesting that we have moved to a place in the debate where 'expert' is used in a snide way. It's not his job to tell us about the other matters. But what he tells us around the complexity of exit is compelling. The argument to remain is very compelling here.
The Leave campaign seems to have become very much of an English Nationalist movement. Some people I have spoken to who are very vocal about leaving have this delusional vision of England going it alone in the world and negotiating lovely trade deals for itself. Will they then return to play cricket on the village green while sipping Pimm's before a spot of Morris dancing to a stirring tune by Elgar? That is if rain doesn't stop play. Here in Wales we are very dependent on EU cash as our industries were largely decimated back in the Thatcher era. I'm quite sure Westminster will not match that cash in the event of Brexit!
I can't think of anyone who engages in critical thinking more regularly than an academic. For critical thinking to be effective, one must first possess a thorough understanding of the underlying FACTS. I'll take his analysis over yours...
Regardless of your personal voting preferences, I know that for many, like myself, this is the 1st time you have seriously explored the options, facts, views of heroes and all and sundry in search for guidance. I know that you will vote with the best intentions for our country. I wish you all well and thank you for sharing your opinions. Peace!👌
Thanks for sharing this link. I had hoped he'd raise this issue, obviously he ran out of time. It's too bigger subject to cover in half an hour. I'm not a law student or academic so I have had to seek out talks and articles by experts to get informed. Why don't we hear from the real experts in the broader media instead of the inaccurate fact bending rallying of politicians of which both sides are guilty.
journos dont like facts, figures or anything that the intelligent person in the street would appreciate. they want to fuel the sensationalist hungry idiots!
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!
Norway pays pretty much the same per capita as we currently do so you're wrong there. He also wrote a section on immigration (here: news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-dishonesty-video-goes-viral/) and more specifically how brexit won't change it whatsoever. Any perception of bias in this video is just you being unwilling to accept your Leave argument can't hold its own.
Lauren, you mentioned "uncontrolled Islamic immigration", but you don't say where from. There are no Islamic countries in the EU. With respect, you seem to be confusing economic migration from the EU (people of all religions and none who come here to work and pay taxes), with refugees (people whose homes have been destroyed by war), from outside the EU.
Norwegians as well as the Swiss pay far less into the EU, fact. Your insanity on the facts about Islamization of European land and the danger it imposes on all of us is worrying. You brainwashed regressive left ideas is threat to democracy and secular values. Norway does not want to be part of the European Union. There is endless videos on youtube of politicians as well as Norwegian public saying how glad they are to be out!
Lauren - do you understand what per capita means? I think you might need to do a bit of backpedalling. You are talking in absolute terms when we are a country of almost 70 million, and they of 5 million. So, rather than attack me with supposed insults, try to do some basic maths.
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.
Au contraire, if we leave, watch American corporations impose their ideas of what workers' rights should be on your thirsty Tory government. Our laws will have to be reviewed as soon as we leave the EU. Watch what happens if we do. I am not taking that chance.
British workers rights include 5 weeks 3 days paid annual leave (including bank holidays), EU workers' rights state the minimum is 4 weeks. Statutory maternity leave in the UK is 52 weeks; according to the EU it's 14 weeks. I fail to see how the EU is protecting workers' rights in those cases?
We want to Exit the Eu and we also want to exit the Single market so we are not tied to anyone and we also don't have to pay the rediculous membership fee, Simply because we want to start our own trade deals outside of the EU When are these Eu Governmentalists going to grasp this? We want the Dictatorship Eu to collapse so we can then embark and aid the european countries in healing after this calamitous falsification of power.
If you don't like hearing what you want to hear, lectures can appear boring. To me it was refreshing to hear the absolute truth from an expert, rather than fear mongering on both sides within the media and Westminster.
I said "great arguments", which is clearly not the case with both your comments. Linda, unfortuantely great ideas also need good delivery to maximise their impact. There is a lot to learn from this #Brexit disaster. Mike, I agree that even the most 'unentertaining' lecture can be hugely interesting but I still think that it is the duty of teachers and experts to polish their presentation skills if they want to make a difference.
Only idiots need things to be glamourised. Trump glamourises his message and everyone loves it. Experts wearing tweed jackets are ignored. This will be the end of modern civilisation as we know it. Goodbye smartphones and tech,
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.
+fhsiudhfiushiu for the life of me they keep presenting them with facts and they simply dismiss it as propaganda. Just think about it, you say he wants to keep his job but he will clock more hours of its an out vote that in turn should make him vote out. A bite to remain will just make his work the same as it was since he started it. So what are you on about?
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.
From my experience most Brexiters have firmly made up minds before hearing any counter argument whatsoever. There minds are largely made up from the start through some British Imperialist bias, disinformation from the tabloid press and xenophobia. Fact checkers show up lie after lie in the Brexit argument, but these get dismissed as 'incorrect facts'. Laughable!
You are correct. Both parties have lied and manipulated to get people on side. But thats my point. Each party has taken a corner and each are overlooking corncerns and facts that they should be paying attention to because it does not support their argument. This professor is doing the exact same. He is presenting an argument from a firm aspect without including facts from the opposition which give peoplee the freedom to make their own decisions. He is in a position were he could give each a side a informed perspective on the decisions they are making but he chose not to. In my opinion this makes him even more deseptive than both the leave and stay campaign. I will not base my decision on a one sided argument.
I don't think that his intention in this lecture is to analyse in depth the pros and cons of the permanence or exit from the EU (he would not have intended such task on a lecture but on another format, probably a book) Also, this is not an academic paper or a student's essay. This is a lecture of an expert with a clear purpose from the start: to clarify some aspects of the debate that have been deliberately misguided by the demagogues that have taken over the debate in the media during this campaign, from both sides as he points out at the beginning of the speech. Although he points at the imperfections of the EU constitution at some point, I am sure that, as a student, you will be aware of the certain restrictions on this professor's lecture, being the most obvious the time constraints. That is why he had to expand certain aspects of the lecture that were left out due to lack of time ( such as immigration) on writing. Of course he makes clear his point and position on this debate, fair enough, he is entitled to do so after his argumentation.
Yes you could never sum up all of the merits or failures of the EU in any great detail within a 25 minute time frame on UA-cam. It's an incredibly large and complex subject. The whole point of this video was an opinion piece, a summary on why he believes staying in the EU is in the country's best interests. The difference is his opinion, unlike most others is informed by 20 years of experience and a Phd. For the OP to say that he fails for not presenting a balanced thesis is like criticizing a cat for not being a dog. It's not meant to be a thesis or a dissertation. Either listen to what he has to say or don't. It's that simple.
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.
Excellent lecture. In fact the most cogent and coherent I've heard during this whole debate.
Yes, but one can say the opposite and be just as coherent. Talk is cheap !!.
But they haven't, not that I've seen. He is an expert in this field and made excellent points.
True True, the majority of experts in this field have come out an said something similar to him no?
It is pure propaganda. Unfortunately people who know nothing about the subject will be fooled.
;/
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.
I've seen it and so have many others - the guy is biased
Which of his statements do you dispute?
Really? How do you judge bias where, from an objective standpoint it could be better to remain?
The more intelligent and well-reasoned you are, the more important it is to be objective, balanced and polite to the other side when putting forward your arguments. You have this duty because huge numbers of people are accepting what you say largely by deferring to your authority. Yes it's useful information in this video, and a lot more credible than what many have put forward. But it can be true as far as it goes, yet misrepresent the full picture.
I recently left a detailed comment myself - don't think youtube allow links, so anyone interested will have to change view from 'Top comments'; to 'Newest first'; above to read it. I quote a key EU law expert who is just as credible as Prof Dougan. Also, can I just say I abhor any comments here that have been (overly) disrespectful or abusive towards Prof Dougan.
(I added the 'overly' in brackets because I don't think people should have to respect his allegation of 'dishonesty on an industrial scale' by the Leave campaign. In my view they are entitled to *politely* call him out on it *if* they are able to provide reasonable counter-arguments to those he bases his allegation on.)
The clearest example of hyperbole I've heard in this campaign is the phrase "dishonesty on an industrial scale" and one of the most blatant untruths is
"Every major stakeholder across every major sector of our economy and society does not see a problem with our EU membership." This is a very poor lecture.
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.
nah he probably wouldn't. Those contracts will go to some hand picked shysters in the inner circle, which he resides outside.
No, he's an adviser to Number 10 already Albert. Watch the video.
+Glen Sykes he's a professor isn't he, not a private lawyer? Not being sarcastic, genuine question. So I wouldn't have thought he was in the list of people to get contracts. You're right I haven't watched it. But I wasn't criticising anything he said.Watching it now.
Guys, I was simply making the point that he has nothing to gain by saying what he says any more than any other citizen. The "Leave" campaign would normally say, "Oh, well, he has a lot to lose if the UK leaves the EU, so you can't believe him."
+James Amoroso MD openly admits in the video that EU law has been his life long work, should we leave the EU his work will have been for nothing, I would say that is quite an impelling reason to want to remain IN, wouldn't you?
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.
"Did he mention that many Countries voted against Europe" - not clear what you are talking about.
"forced to vote again to get the right vote" - still not clear. Were guns involved? That's how you force someone to vote right...? I don't think so. So perhaps you are alluding to another act of democratic expression, but really, I can't tell what you are talking about. But it sounds serious.
"The Euro Project is a Dictatorship." SHIT. It IS serious!! Dictatorships are bad aren't they?!? That explains the use of guns to force people into voting. Crikey.
"Every intelligent persons knows this". I hate it when I don't get the memos about important shit. I'd like to think of myself as slightly more intelligent than the nearest block of Gouda, but really, no one has told me about this dictatorship thing. I honestly thought that the Council of Europe, comprised of elected politicians from each of the member states, came together to decide what the EU should do. The EU is supposed to be full of civil servants who take orders to get things done. I thought they were like, "there to help us". I had no idea that they were operating a dictatorship, coercing us to do their bidding. Wow. They are going to be mad as hell when they realise that one of the sovereign nations within the EU has allowed the people to democratically express an opinion about whether to remain IN the dictatorship.
I'm going to keep my eye open for all those tanks painted in blue with the yellow stars on, making sure we all follow the dictator.
Oh, hang on. All dictatorships need an actual dictator don't they...? You know, a Mussolini, a Gaddafi, a Stalin, a Saddam... Well, I suppose the Internet is democratic too. Anyone can express an opinion, even if it lacks actual "co-herence".
So if I try to disagree you will paint me as bigoted and a hater.
I don't necessarily agree with what weaverspell has said, but are you not being a bigoted ass by making the comment "I can imagine there will be a whole army of haters attacking this, for reasons of bigotry and post-truth indignation."
Little hypocritical, do you not think?
Not really Steve... "A whole army of haters will attack & their reasons will be bigotry and post-truth indignation". I think these people have nothing to offer other than a mistaken sense of nostalgia and self-importance. Other people may want to raise serious points about what the Professor has spoken of. They may do so citing other fields of significance, as justification for their opinions. They too could be clear, insightful, honest, nuanced, erudite even. But on balance mate, I very much doubt it. As I see it, it all falls down to what we understand by the terms "bigot" and "hater". In my mind, these does not equate to a person having a contrary opinion to the Professor; instead, it means to me, a person who will not accept the validity of any argument which differs from their own, no matter how strong, fact-based, evidential it is. BTW, all said and done, I am a hypocrite. Now tell me that you aren't and perhaps we can have a polite argument about it ;-)
Well I am glad it has been cleared up.
I made the distinction between your comment and hypocrisy, as your point did suggest all comments would be considered as bigoted and hateful. I am delighted you would consider clear and insightful points that support alternative arguments. I personally am having difficulty finding clear and concise arguments to support either.
I am glad I could help you find the path to righteousness, you are welcome!
Sorry I was not more clear in the first place Steve. Not only am I a hypocrite, but I'm also not a very good communicator. And for that, I apologise. It seems the decent thing to do. I think one of the things that genuinely bothers me about this whole debate, is that I have tried and tried to find papers, articles, videos which are able to articulate a genuinely worthy benefit of the Brexit argument. I worry that in not finding any convincing arguments that undermine my own opinions, that I might be guilty of the sort of bigotry or short-sightedness that I have previously railed against. It's easy to find material we agree with but that only reinforces prejudice. It's much better for improving our ideas, to find evidence which disproves our convictions. I've waded through so much short-sighted ranting, misunderstandings, falsifications, half-baked assumptions, as to find this bit of a depressing exercise at times. I might come across as an arrogant twerp, but really, I'm looking for high quality info and find the polarisation in this debate a little bit infantile.
Good to hear intelligent and rational debate. Totally agree.
It was a monologue not a debate.
They call it a lecture.
what did you call it then?
He's listening to another lecture. The lecture is called "How to reply to good youtube questions within 24 hours". Hopefully he'll pass that lecture....
Bloody hell, what an intellectual comment.
Excellent Finally a straight answer about this debate.
the most balanced talk from an expert on EU law to help make up our minds about the big vote on Thursday.
I can't see any balance at all! (please see my comments above)
You're so pathetic.
The fact that you think the EU is a dictatorship reveals your supreme lack of intelligence...
weaverspell LOL
+weaverspell You can't even use proper punctuation, so I'd be surprised if you could graduate from your local Sixth Form college! 😂
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.
+Chris PT It may sound like, I have just based my vote on listening to one expert. I have been to number of talks in London, who are all experts and academics in the field of EU law and politics. They all make perfect sense. I'm casting my vote on what I know and not on what I don't know. I stopped listening to the politicians long ago and the so called experts.
I agree Kuldip, he should have been on the TV debates. Great to hear you listened to the experts with a reasoned argument rather than finger in the air logic. Well done, please vote today.
+ x b Linda Lawrence-Wilkes ml
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.
I couldn't agree more.
Regardless of whether individuals are in, out or undecided, this is a far more civilised way to go about things than the shambolic bruhaha in the media and parliament.
+Chris PT so what you're claiming is that prof Michael Dougan has been teaching his law students at Liverpool university bogus information ? If that was the case then surely his students would all be failing ? Yet he is one the most highly respected in his field , so I'm more inclined to believe everything he's saying
kirkd81 You know that's not what I claimed. There's a grey area between undoubted expertise relating to non-controversial 'information', and political opinion. He's not a professor specialising in politics, and even if he was, they have hugely differing theories/models of sovereignty.
Chris PT North Korea for example
More, clear, overwhelming, understandable, reliable information.
yeah right
Did you struggle to understand it?
Bravo Prof. Finally solid FACTS and no scare mongering. I'm IN
Yeah me too!
He's also funded via the Jean Monnet Progamme.
That is why they have been steering our children to education to indoctrinate them to the EU.
Not because they get jobs after ...we have little employment in the UK.
The EU are asset stripping the UK. We were the 3rd richest nation in the world in 1972. We are the 5th we give more yo the EU than we receive. All our own money. The EU is a ponzi scheme on the tax payers
You might want to look at this, Chris. Guy from a neutral standpoint checked Brexit and Remain quoted facts - and found that the former are mostly lies or misinformation. There's your proof. medium.com/im-trying-to-fact-check-brexit/fact-checking-brexit-the-conclusion-c1f56ba4cb70#.53aux5a6a
Hi Chris. Yes it was a reply to your earlier comment. YT doesn't always drop them in the right place. But I wasn't comparing your expert with our expert. This "neutral guy" is coming from a different and very interesting angle: he set out specifically to check the facts quoted in both the Brexit and Remain campaigns. He did indeed find dishonesty on a large scale in the former - hence his work can be seen as justifying Prof Dougan's claim.
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."
Remain voters: ''Oh look we lost the referendum''
Leave Voters: "Oh look, we've lost everything because we won the Referendum."
So your completely ok with the UK public not able to decide 60% of our laws at present & not able to elect or get rid of the dictators that decides our laws for us? Oh & that by 2050 they openly want to be in a position where they decide 100% of all laws in all the countries in the EU (likely 50+ by then if they have there own way)! That would mean getting rid of democracy completely & having no parliament or prime minister just an impartial monarchy. They want an EU super-state where absolutely everything is decided by EU super elites from a round table in Brussels. That's a true dictatorship, kind of reminds me of Hitler & his plans before he committed suicide! Advice for you is to listen to alternative media & mainstream media then decide what you believe instead of just mainstream media lies, it is clearly brainwashing you. Luckily we have voted out & now this corrupt tyranny establishment that calls itself the EU is now doomed. We can co-operate with countries as friends without having to be part of a corrupt super-state! :-)
Ok a couple of things:
1: You've completely invalidated all your arguments by breaking Godwins law, so there's really no need for me to continue, but I will anyway on to...
2: Your arguments about an EU Superstate is hyperbole with no basis in fact.
3: No I'm not happy with the way the EU is run. I was hoping the referendum would be a catalyst for change within it as are many other member states who also feel the EU isn't giving them a fair deal.
The end result is no one has won anything here, we've all lost.
Oh look, an EU funded academic supporting the EU. Let's ignore him. eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/actions/jean-monnet/jean-monnet-chairs_en
Finally someone who knows something talking about the debate. Why are we not getting this kind of quality information from our traditional media?
Because the mainstream media is compromised
I think so John. They are the weakest point of our democracy.
Because the "common" men would not understand what he is saying and would just change the channel.
Unfortunately Barry the media has been hijacked by Rupert Murdoch's right wing media's hatred of the EU.
Because our traditional media doesn't want you to know this.
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.
WHEN WILL THE UKIP TROLLS STOP LYING, TO UNDERMINE ANYONE WHO DARES TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR DISHONEST, FEAR MONGERING, HATE FILLED PROPAGANDA?
ukip have done no such thing
You mean like the remain side does?
So address the arguments he makes not where they are coming from but the substance of them
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?
If you disagree with his facts then show us where he is wrong. Attacking the person instead of arguing with the factual details is lazy and has become a feature of the Leave campaign. I do hope there are not too many conspiracy theorists out there but rather more with an open mind willing to listen to and consider the views of others.
You'll never get it. He spams every Brexit video with the same garbage.
Thanks for the tip.
Those who support Remain do so because they believe that Britain's future will be better within the EU. Wanting to remain within the EU and being proud of your own country are not mutually exclusive. All members of the EU are democracies not dictatorships. Moreover, the EU has played a vital role in encouraging the former eastern block countries to transform themselves into liberal democracies following the break up of the Soviet Union. There are members of Britain's elite on both sides of the referendum campaign. What are Boris Johnson (Eton and Oxford), Michael Gove and other prominent leaders of the Leave campaign if not part of the elite?
The "elite" argument is on the same page as the apoplexy I've seen from some regarding Richard Branson's pro-Remain comments: "How dare a billionaire that doesn't live in this country tell us how to vote". You can but cough politely and point to Rupert Murdoch to illustrate the deep irony.
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?
they are not suspicious of experts they just don't want to believe he exists, and they certainly don't want this getting out to the wider public.
I see, so you don't have an opinion on issues such as sovereignty? How about people like you don't vote in the referendum (or elections)?! Simply leave it to the ''experts'' to decide for you. Just look at what would have happened in 1992 if we'd listened to the ''experts'' who were telling the UK not to leave the ERM. And then again in 2000...the ''experts'' were telling us it would be a disaster if the UK didn't join the Euro. Thankfully, the ''experts'' were ignored...if they hadn't been the UK would now be a basket case.
Migration does not affect the rich with regard to the cost that migrants drain the public purse . Migrants will NEVER own 1/2 or 1 million pound houses or live on/in vast acres of Britains green and land pleasant land If you want to be ruled ultimately by France and Germany VOTE YES.
He says he has no idea what will happen if we leave the EU, other than that it will mean lots of bureaucratic upheaval (rewriting laws, renegotiating trade deals e etc.) He doesn't say this will be a disaster from which we won't recover. He isn't playing a game of rhetoric; he is just putting some of the nonsense straight (i.e. we are a sovereign state and no amount of Leave claiming otherwise makes that not the case), and pointing out that claims about what will happen with regards the economy and immigration if we leave are utterly specualative. Why would you disbelieve him? Sure experts get it wrong, but if my doctor (particularly if my doctor is a world leading expert in her particular field) gives me a treatment I am probably, on balance, going to take it rather than rely on information I've found on alternative cures written by charlatans online. What he says is that the claims leave are making are based on untruths, and he gives some balance to that. He isn't making a massive emotional case for remain. You can watch the video and decide on balance you'd like to leave. Fair enough. But the people contradicting or undermining his points on the basis they have read something different (presumably in the the leave campaign literature that he discredits and evidences as false) So I don't understand your point.
Also: experts were by no means unanimously in support of the UK joining the Euro (and if we had, the situation with that currency would be different now anyway, for better or worse - so who knows who was right?).
I don't disagree that it is lower income earners who overwhelmingly compete with economic migrants for jobs, and who feel the effects of immigration more keenly. As he points out though, there is no guarantee that leaving the EU will end freedom of movement because any trade deal we renegotiate is likely to be based on trade deals with the already existing non-EU member states (e.g. Norway) and therefore will very probably include freedom of movement.
Additionally, I can't see why you would think businesses are just going to stop employing low income overseas labour. They won't. I expect either we will move to a points based system and see low waged EU labour replaced that way, or a large number of business will relocate out of the UK. Anyway, vote how you want of course, but better to do so based on facts rather than fantasies about no more migration to the UK if we go.
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!
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.
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?'
How about call to authority - he speaks well, means well, but is totally disingenuous - he's the establishment. And what about his referring to the creation evolution debate, what fallacy is that? He could easily be the creationist here actually considering free markets/free trade are closely related to evolution, in fact are the same thing - same principles; the EU stands for a creator, a god, hands on control. Like all species, globalise or die; you can stay in your corner, you may keep it up with Greece, Spain and France ... but you won't keep up with the rest of the world; they (China and Asia) will take what you are missing out on. They are.
I only got 5 minutes into his speech and his speech was full of fallacies. Appeal to pity, appeal to authority, and a bunch of faulty comparison fallacies.
While true, he did not simply say 'vote stay because I'm an expert', he only used his background and experience to give some context as to why you should bother listening to him at all. He then gave a detailed and reasoned discussion covering both sides. It turns out that his experience has lead him to believe that staying is preferable, and he backs this up with a convincing argument. This is more than anyone on the leave campaign has bothered to do.
Anyone who earns money from being related to the EU is gonna vote remain because every argument about remaining in the EU is about MONEY. It's all about MONEY. MONEY MONEY. The big corporations, The rich ruling Elites, The banks, The finance houses, etc etc etc,. Hence why the free movement of people is much valued by them, because its about the free movement of cheap labour. In other words people from poorer countries often migrate to work longer hours for less money and so keeping wages low and enhancing profits for rich big business. Why wouldn't they love it. POWER and UNACCOUNTABLY always leads to GREED and CORRUPTION. It is a fact of human nature. If a human being has power, like the members of the EU commission, but with no accountability and no danger of ever losing their position, they always end up becoming corrupt. Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely, just like Sepp Blatter and FIFA. If trade deals are so important why is Britain swamped with Chinese and Japanese goods. There is no trade deal with those countries. THIS GUY HAS AN AGENDA.
I guess you didn't get to the bit where he says 'if we leave the EU it will be so complicated that people like me with be kept in work for a very long time'
Exactly the sort of thing that Michael 'Slithy' Gove doesn't want people listening to. Good work Professor.
Proud of you, my administrative law lecturer
Really appreciate hearing from an actual expert.
It's a shame this talk didn't come much earlier in the debate!
But we're tired of hearing from experts :/
Who needs experts when they say things people don't want to hear? People don't take kindly to being told they're wrong, even when it's true.
Well take no notice of the doctor next time you see him, get a second opinion from a bloke in the pub.
And there's so much evidence of that is this comments section.
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.
I love how when greece was asking for its multiple bailouts we all thought they where reckless and demanded they behave more, I love how we all highlighted how they never should have been allowed to join to begin with because they had fiddled their books to meet the requirements and now because the EU stepped up and demanded things in order to give them the bailouts they needed we use it as evidence against the EU. Yes by all means we should have just kept giving Greece money indefinitely without demanding they change anything at all. What should have happened with Greece is it should have been kicked out of the EU it NEVER met the actual requirements for membership to begin with and fiddled their books to make it look like they did but instead of kicking them out the EU put a list of demands down to justify letting them stay in and now because of it the EU is the bad bad people. Greece fell apart because of the running of the Greece government and time after time they got a bailout at the expense of the EU and other Nations and time after time they proved they could not be trusted to run things properly because time after time they came running asking for more money. Using Greece as evidence against the EU is like using a mass murderer as evidence against gun control.
Allowing Greece in to the EU was not the mistake, allowing Greece in to the Euro Zone was. How can the Greek economy be expected to perform like that of the highly industrialised countries like Germany or Holland? This was the folly. The bail outs were a nice little earner for the middlemen like Goldman Sachs who knew full well that Greece was likely to default and took out an elaborate form of insurance to make sure that they cashed in either way. Greece is as much a victim as it is culpable, although the traditional neo-liberal spin on it is that they are feckless and not worthy of sympathy. Germany's conduct toward Greece has been quite an eye opener.
Excellent response.
Greece was ridden roughshod over by the banking sector, they (Greece) didn't get the vast majority of the "bailout" money it simply went back to the banks that had loaned them too much in the first place. This creates a death spiral economy. The same as the Weimar republic. Money paid as the supposed bailout largely went to pay off the debt rather than bolster the Greek economy but they were loaned the money so the debt went up not down. In Weimar it was money for war reparations but the same effect - print money to pay off debts - money goes outside the economy in war reparations, economy sinks, print more money.
There's more going on than just EU at this point and, yes, the EU were wholly wrong to allow it to happen but not wholly responsible for it.
None of this alters the underlying trade agreement advantage we get from our membership of the EU or the chaos that would ensue us leaving.
Thank you for that response. I was having trouble trying to identify just what was missing from his arguments. You have hit the nail on the head.
Have come back to this in 2018 to remember how much was known before the vote and how much was ignored.
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!
My question to you would be: how can you "firmly believe" something you have a difficult time explaining? If you can't explain something simply, you haven't understood it thoroughly. This isn't an attack, just something to think about.
The only reason you aren't resented as an immigrant in France is the money and spending power you have taken there. If you were trying to enter the UK without those, you would only be welcome if you had some worthwhile skill to offer. Many migrants do not have that. Seaside resorts in the south coast of the UK are teeming with that kind of migrant, and they are a huge problem in those towns, which the locals have to cope with while the enlightened .intelligentsia eslewhere cling to their specious philanthropy.
@JohnSampson: How can you say the MEPs are unelected when they all are, including by the UK? You have also completely forgotten the European Council (which includes the British Prime Minister who was elected by the UK electorate) which can veto any law if the European Parliament and the European Council do not agree. The European Commission in fact has the least power, even though it is responsible for proposing laws - because both the Parliament and the Council approve laws (or not). Have a quick read here: europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm.
We ahve veto on a number of things.
You MAY be right on getting stronger T&C if let back in but can be assured no rebate from the membership rates :( Want to risk paying MORE ?
PS, they are us "unelected" as our Westminster government and Holyrood.
Your voting power comment is the rationale many used in the YES campaign for the Scottish Independence ref :(
So if the UK could exert total and absolute over the EU, that would be fine for you. Unfortunately, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy. No doubt you would also not accept the UK Government because it was voted by constituencies other than the one where you live.
Thank you Professor, fascinating insight. The ideas presented about the international trade situation are clear & simple.
preparing you for your new appointed leaders every step of the way lol oh dear the sheeple.... Please wake up Shaun, we only have 1 day left, and this clown is looking after his future job, not your best interests.
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.
Not been used because it would of been picked apart be facts and reason.
Something the remain camp don't want ...it would off crumbled their campaign and shown them to be a fabrication of the truth.
That is why Cameron would NOT be date the leave camp. Left that to Nick Clegg and he was shown to be a liar of the super copper EU. We survived before the EU and we WILL survive after. Like so many nations have and do today.
Logical, coherent and fact-based argument that dispels many myths.
Like what?
Fallacy-based argument
...well, as well as his 20 years experience and a PHD in the relevant field, he also includes citations to studies in his speech. How do you conclude a fallacy based argument? More importantly, where are your credentials, arguments and evidence?
...well, as well as his 20 years experience and a PHD in the relevant field, he also includes citations to studies in his speech. How do you conclude "like what"? More importantly, where are your credentials, arguments and evidence?
Like pretty much EVERYTHING Leave have claimed.
Very good, Interesting and informative
If only this had gone viral before the debate :/
#RIPUK
+Fuzz944 it went viral and people werent swayed? wow.
***** Really? I didn't see this on any media before the vote. I found this after the vote from someone on twitter who has a blog about political stuff.
+WeirdestWolf it did but not big enough, few million facebook likes and about 180,000 views on here. I saw it before the vote and had to talk two people I work with out of voting out just for a laugh. I wonder how many others voted out thinking they were just sticking two fingers up to the politicians.
Heisenberg B. Damned Right, okay, so not as viral as I was meaning. I meant like on the news levels of viral.
This should have been required reading for the entire electorate . Too late now !!!!!!!!!
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.
I wish our government could provide a clear picture like this, instead of their political rhetoric. Thank you very much for presenting the facts.
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!
Immigration is a media invented problem??? I am genuinely interested to know where exactly you live. Please please please get in a cab and ask the driver to drive you through East London, Birmingham and Luton. Then tell me immigration is an invented problem. No doubt you are a typical silver spoon fed sheltered individual.
are you sure you are not confusing non-eu with eu immigration? because we can totally control non-eu immigrations, but oops! we dont i wonder why?
Ridiculous. David Cameron went on Question Time on Sunday and said we'll never get a good deal with the EU from outside because Canada tried and failed to, and they faired better than others who have tried. So basically he admitted that from within the EU we currently have a crap trade deal with Canada and the rest of the world and there is nothing we can do about it (apart from leave)
+BatsAndBadgers because if we did Cameron wouldn't have the excuse of saying that 52% of migration is still from outside the EU. I think it hasn't been clamped down on for that reason alone. Wont it be great when we can turn down Lithuanian fruit pickers in favour of Australian school teachers
Wont it be great when much of the UK horticultural industry has to shut down for want of eastern Europeans who want to do the jobs.
Wont it be great when a substantial part of the UK care home industry runs into acute staffing issues because they can no longer get the staff. But you won't mind wiping your ageing parents posteriors will you when there is no-one else left to do this for you?
I tried out the Aussie points system when in Oz in May and it was pointed out repeatedly that Australia has double the level of immigration that the UK has.
Further, when I floated the "Anglosphere" suggestion favoured by Brexiters, I was actually laughed at. The response (that is repeatable) went along the lines of "haven't you guys noticed that this is 2016 and not 1916; we are no longer a colony but a modern Pacific nation". The second point made was that Australia's principal trading partners are now China, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and the USA. Britain, owing to the self-caused destruction of much of our manufacturing sector, has a minute traded goods relationship now with Australia which appears to consist of JLR 4x4 cars, BBC television programmes and Carr's water biscuits. Beyond that, I had rather thought that the flow of professional personnel tended to be from the UK and to Australia - particularly in the medical profession where junior doctors etc have had enough of Tory victimisation of public sector workers and they have the skills that enable them to stick up two fingers to Hunt.
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.
I guess you didn't notice all the fallacies used in the arguments?
It was an excellent synoptic video.
Why don't you outline those fallacies, if you can
The name suits - nothing but waffle
?????
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
Gove's comments about experts were the 2nd most irresponsible intervention in this debate, behind the disgraceful Farage poster. We only have to look at how people with knowledge are being smeared and dismissed to see the hostile climate he's exacerbated. God help us if he becomes PM.
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
+Chris PT not exactly a fair comparison , for a start Michael Dougan isn't part of any campaign , he's neutral in that he has criticised both campaigns for spreading false claims & statistics , he merely pointed out that the leave campaign have done it to far worse extent .
I have been researching the debate with an open mind and I still cannot find anyone else more qualified than this man to present a decent argument for leaving the eu , there are little to no facts or sources to back up any of it , I even saw a leave poster with Keith Chegwin on it , it's become a bit parody now , 100% remain !! Unless this man or anyone else with similar credentials can convince me in the next 12 hours , unlikely as I'll be sleeping through 8 of them , night
+kirkd81 did you watch the video? I'm wondering if it would be overly absurd of me to mention that he states in the video that he will vote to remain.
+KnewItAll of course he says he lays his cards on the table and that he believes in his professional opinion that we should remain and he's voting remain , he also makes it clear that he impartial to either campaign party , now there's a difference there , he disassociates himself from the campaign party's , the whole point of the video is to explain why it's better to remain.
As I said previously , I haven't seen anyone with the same credentials in this field oppose him or what he says , he also states that if we were to leave he would have enough work to keep him busy for many years , so he's not trying to protect his job , I don't know why people can't just accept that a professor in law & a man with phd's in Eu law is being truthful and honest here , after all he does teach this to thousands of students
+kirkd81 'the whole point in the video...' Seems like a bias to me, right?
+KnewItAll he also mentions how the remain side is right and the leave is wrong. You are not watching this video with an open mind I believe.
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!
new entry for the English dictionary. Evidence - commonly known in fascist circles as scaremongering.
"Dishonesty on industrial scale": Brilliant!
I genuinely don't understand how anyone can watch this and still vote Leave...
Because listening to an EU funded, biased (admitted himself), middle class "expert" doesn't mean anything. Please educate yourself and understand just because he is a professor, doesn't make him factually accurate. There are parts to his speech that can be literally ripped apart
middle class i hate that being used. This working class middle class divide is ridiculous. we are supposed to voting for collective futures here. Dont follow the herd based on which class they are in.
He misleads. Hell the whole sovereignty issue was already covered by the BBC by Paxman. I really doubt a professor of EU law is going to hold a larger influence than a well respected reporter known by many years and a household name for years.
If you go and get a basic textbook on Public law, you will discover that we do cede our sovereignty. I made a comment arguing why this is the case somewhere previously in this comment section. Cba to go find it, but the
TL;DR version is that yes we have total legally sovereignty, but that is meaningless since it has to be viewed in a political context. At any time we could rip up the 1972 EC act, but that would mean taking an action that would require a referendum itself as the political decision is far greater than the legal decision.
I think the example given by my public law lecturer sometime ago serves very good for this anology. Parliament could make a law saying it is illegal for people to smoke in france. However, that is meaningless as we do not have the political power to start arresting french men on the streets of paris.
It is equally meaningless to say we have retained sovereignty, because we can leave the EU. E.U Law overrules national law, and the CJEU has stated this on numerous occasions and it has been followed in national courts.
Just take a look at the Solange cases where the German Constitutional Court bends over backwards, because any finding against the legitimacy of EU law would cause political consequences that might themselves jeopardise the German political system.
Which parts? Can you timestamp them? Could you provide counter-evidence, also could you provide your credentials please?
Go read up what sovereignty is, then go read find your local library look for a public law text book, also written by Professors, read the Chapters on sovereignty then read the chapters on the EU. Even further to this, go read some Dworkin, Kelsen, Austin, Finnis, Hart, Fuller and more about legal systems and what law is.
All of this knowledge is publicly available.
He misleads when he says that we have not lost sovereignty, as much as he misleads when he makes a big point about having to renegotiate all the trade deals, when trade deals themselves are a red herring. .
I'm not going to start making time stamps to analyse his words instead I'm making a refutation of the points he is making. If you are unable to link my refutations and the points he are making then you are failing to comprehend the video or my wall of text.
TL:DR Go read my other comment somewhere in this list of comments cause I'm too lazy to CNP it for a third time, and don't want to spam the same comment.
This is really great. Thank you Professor Michael Dougan. It might be worthwhile to make a short version of this - perhaps with animation. It's really important that this is seen & heard widely.
Great to hear some proper facts at last. Instead of thee usual scare mongering
I watched this twice, where are the "proper facts"?
that it takes years, decades to negotiate trade agreements.
that one of the biggest issues are the millions of UK citizens in the EU, and millions of EU citizens in the UK. How will that work out? Think for a second.
we would trade under the auspices of the WTO, while negotiating.
It sounds like you don't understand lectures. You are suffering from cognitive bias. Look up cognitive bias... it's a way to educate yourself in your failings.
I wonder who would be prepared to trade with a country that has a declining credibility and no proper processes in place? Sure, there will be trade, coming at a price. Some might see it as their chance to dominate negotiations.
We will watch this one day, in the not so distant future, with complete anguish that not enough people got to see it.
Yup, I am watching this in the not too distant future (compared to when the comment was made :o) ). I do feel complete anguish at what is going on.
@@AndyT1 I'm watching this in the not too distant future (compared to when your comment was made) and Britain is leaving the EU in 3 days, on 31st January 2020. All I can say is it's about time we left this corrupt, self-serving, anti-democratic union. Good riddance to the European Union.
@@AndyT1 Leaving the EU on 31/01/20
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.
Many Thanks for an informative viewpoint....
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.
This isn't about the short term impact surely ? This is about the long term view of where the EU is going which given its progress to date doesn't take much imagination to work out.
The long term impact of leaving seems to be that the UK would be a little bit less well off if it leaves and trades under worse case WTO rules. But given that the same negative forecasts made when the UK didn't join the Euro turned out to be nonsense, it's reasonable to take all of this negativity with a pinch of salt.
It isn't possible to know what will happen in the future because it depends entirely on political agreements and world events. How will things look if the EU doesn't sort out its Eurozone problems and the whole lot collapses ? Will make Brexit look like a walk in the park.
yes he explains it well and fairly and still these people aren't 'getting it'
Joseph Marino - "Insulting someone for presenting research is not an intellectual or civilised way and getting your point across."
Neither is insulting those who disagree with you, as the professor does in his video.
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"
Send this to your opposing friends, see if they have anywhere near a concrete answer.
All I needed to make my decision was an understanding of how the EU works - and here it is . Thank you Professor Dougan.
This tells you very little about how the EU actually works. Very selective biased presentation with little real information of any value, and pretty disingenuous with it. But since you can't be bothered to find out about the EU from the numerous other sources available you wouldn't know that. Just because you're an expert doesn't mean you can't be biased in your opinion and skew your argument to suit your opinion, all dressed up under the guise of "I'm an expert".
yes, he does use the term 'deluded' ..suits you.
It tells you a lot about the EU works. Perhaps you just didn't understand it. Or maybe, because you yourself are biased, you just aren't willing to accept facts. By all means provide your unbiased facts to demonstrate how this isn't the case?
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?
well I'm sure this ever so clever prof. will save us all in from this armageddon
Nothing else compares to the single market - not exactly like for like but the United States itself as a large sovereign state.
What a prophecy. Everything he has said has become true.
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.
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
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.
Thank you!
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....
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?
Or could it be that they dislike that he's presenting his opinion as facts to support his own views in places?
At least your dogs can't understand what you're saying. Otherwise they'd be rabid.
Jason Wells I assume you're one of those people calling everyone who voted out an old bigot, and don't understand the irony in doing so.
Thanks for the constructive contribution to the discussion, though.
Well if that's you're reply, then I know what the other 299 think as well. *shakes head in disbelief*
This is staggering, what a fantastic debate. Everyone should see this.
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
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.
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!
I was going to vote to leave the EU and then i made myself do a little of my own research before the vote day… and found this video before i voted… 24 minutes later I had completely changed my mind… This guy has got every single thing spot on! He should run for Parliament, he would / should become prime minister tomorrow! This video needs to go viral as every year that goes past, things get worse outside of the EU!
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.
Excellent, honest, enlightening speech.
Shame Professor Dougan couldn't have set the tone for our politics - on both sides.
Commonsense and quality information at last!
I've not a clue what's going on. I'd believe a professor everytime over a MP
He's a paid advocate of the EU, a Monnet professor. This is not an unbiased view.
If you believe your comments are true, point out where the speaker is wrong.
No, listen to what he says. At 3.00. "In case you think I'm being biased and one sided, this is what we teach our first and second year undergraduates. It is factual and evidence based."
you want facts? facebook.com/leaveeuofficial/videos/973916212706620/
Yeah because that's really kept secret... Like its not on the front page of his university profile or anything is it? Don't know if Nigel Farage has been whispering in your ear about what the Jean Monet program is but it sounds like you've been fed more propaganda by the leave side about it. Its no more shadowy than the fact that organisations exist for promoting the research of Biology. Is pointing out that the speaker is a 'biologist' and thus 'biased' say anything? Is it more a case that if you want to know about how the EU actually operates you listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about - which is more than can be said for many of the leave campaigners.
and an expert!!!!!
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.
Question shouldn't be "who should I listen to?"
It should be "is what he's saying correct?"
Because he's biased, it doesn't mean that he only said "I'll lose money if we Brexit, please don't leave".
spot on - the guy happens to be Chair holder for the Jean Monnet institute
Here are some facts facebook.com/bobsyleck/videos/743609722445607/
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. UKIP TROLLS JUST KEEP ON LYING. VOTE LEAVE = VOTE LIE
+Gary Adlen I am certainly no UKiP supporter being a person of colour and it is telling that you should raise this racist spectre in response to a quite simple observation; shame on you!
+Gary Adlen ..and you prove my point about vested interests... IDIOT!
This is clearly a man who has made our relationship with the EU his living for many years. A vote to leave from him would be like a turkey voting for Christmas. Oh sorry, I forgot we're not supposed to mention Turkey until June 24th.
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
Watch video. FFS
Do you even know how trade agreements work? Of course EU business will want to trade with us. UK leaving will potentially make trading with us more difficult for them as much as it would for us.
If you want the UK to import less goods, then I hope you're fine with loosing access to your iPhone, wine, coffe and cheap clothing.
It would be cheaper the UK to import goods if the UK wasn't part of the EU.
Oh really ? So other countries would magically decide to sell good to the UK a cheaper prices ? Or somehow the UK not part of the single market would not apply import tariffs ? Seems like you have no clue what you are talking about.
If ever a vid should go 'viral' this is it.
Is there a transcript of this talk available?
Dougan's speech should be transcribed in a newspaper article
You can click More -> Transcript to view the automatic captions. They aren't really in a shareable format, though.
So people can read his mis-information as well as listen to it!
And your qualifications in EU/UK law are what? And which University do you teach at on that subject? And what specific mis-information are speaking of?
Saying nyah, nyah, nyah does not qualify as reasoned argument. If you have some substantive issues with Professor Dougan's assessment, then spell them out.
Michael Dougan, please make another talk about the result now! I'm devastated and I need to hear what you have to say about this now :(
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?
Excellent.
I'm wondering Chris, how relevant is my argument that the UK can feed itself as proposed in 1975 and while 60% of our electricity comes from 8 other countries, they're not EU countries and we've had to create trade deals with those countries to supply our needs showing that we can form trade deals where and when we have to?
+KnewItAll I'd say the most relevant argument is the net benefits of free international trade in the longer term (for all countries that participate in it). Whereas the EU is protectionist towards the rest of the world, because of the dominance of powerful groups that often have different interests to the UK national interest - or even to the interests of Europe overall.
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.
He certainly compares a future outside The Eu with the status quo, rather than the future outside the EU with the future inside it (which we must decide upon)
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.
I think what he's basically saying is that leaving would result in a logistical nightmare as so many of our laws and trading arrangements have such strong EU influence.
I guess the question is whether you are happy letting those in power (in the UK) totally rewrite the laws of the land as they think fit, and renegotiate all trade agreements around the World. And whether you are happy to fly into the unknown and wait several years - possibly decades - 'to see how things pan out'.
If our economy and legal system was so robust and strong, and our leaders so clued up on everything, then maybe leave is a logical option. However our leaders seem to make a mess of everything - even their campaigning - so I for one don't have faith in their competence or abilities to deal with such massive undertakings, and certainly not without the help from other member states. That in itself is enough for me to choose 'Remain'.
And yet you trust in unelected, anonymous foreign Eurocrats to make laws and directives for this country. Very strange.
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.
His argument about sovereignty is a lie
Let's just say it's an opinion that lacks detail.
In what way?
deluded
deluded
At last a voice of reason.
Great video. Thank you.
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.
Thank god somebody is concentrating on their area of expertise......it's a bit of a novelty in this campaign.
Leaving the EU is an unnecessary gamble, certain to cause economic hardship. The idea that if we stay in we are doomed forever to further integration and all manner of troubles is conjecture and speculation. However if 10 years down the line this comes to be the case....lets have another referendum. Simples.
"develop totalitarian tendencies" You make a good point. Just because it's seen as 'leftist' and only a little bit totalitarian now, it doesn't mean that it will remain that way.
If you think were gonna have another referendum in 10 years your mad, it doesn't work like this. We'd be talking about lifetime before going through all this again, lets be honest.
Only sensible comment I've seen here. Different people rank different areas of this debate differently. He clearly ranks economic factors above all else, but the same really cannot be said for the average British family or worker.
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?
You won't get that unfortunately. Last night we saw Cameron have the last say on Question Time, and given a very easy time by an obviously stage managed audience, with Dimbleby the only one there pretending to give Cameron a hard time. Sovereignty was not mentioned and Cameron was not challenged on his making economics the main issue, which it is not.
If you want facts and figures look at William Dartmouth's book on Trade and the EU. and the precise figures on Britain's lack of influence in the EU, and why it will diminish further.
I have contacted Borris, Gove , Fararge, Priti Patel to get them to address the arguments he presented but so far not a peep
You won't get an expert from the Brexit side because Brexit is a pipe dream that no one has yet experienced. With any luck it will stay as a pipe dream.
Any chance you can just note down a few bullet points. I didn't realise influence could be objectively measured.
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?
And an independent Ingerland would deal with the refugees any better? The whole point is that the Leave folks don't want anyone else entering their green and rainy land...
It's interesting that we have moved to a place in the debate where 'expert' is used in a snide way. It's not his job to tell us about the other matters. But what he tells us around the complexity of exit is compelling. The argument to remain is very compelling here.
The Leave campaign seems to have become very much of an English Nationalist movement. Some people I have spoken to who are very vocal about leaving have this delusional vision of England going it alone in the world and negotiating lovely trade deals for itself. Will they then return to play cricket on the village green while sipping Pimm's before a spot of Morris dancing to a stirring tune by Elgar? That is if rain doesn't stop play. Here in Wales we are very dependent on EU cash as our industries were largely decimated back in the Thatcher era. I'm quite sure Westminster will not match that cash in the event of Brexit!
You are free to believe what ever experts say. I personally think that every authority must be challenged. It's called critical thinking.
I can't think of anyone who engages in critical thinking more regularly than an academic. For critical thinking to be effective, one must first possess a thorough understanding of the underlying FACTS. I'll take his analysis over yours...
Regardless of your personal voting preferences, I know that for many, like myself, this is the 1st time you have seriously explored the options, facts, views of heroes and all and sundry in search for guidance. I know that you will vote with the best intentions for our country. I wish you all well and thank you for sharing your opinions. Peace!👌
For any interested this blog includes Prof Dougan's thoughts on migration & the EU. benrpreston.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/what-is-the-eu/
Thanks for sharing this link. I had hoped he'd raise this issue, obviously he ran out of time. It's too bigger subject to cover in half an hour. I'm not a law student or academic so I have had to seek out talks and articles by experts to get informed. Why don't we hear from the real experts in the broader media instead of the inaccurate fact bending rallying of politicians of which both sides are guilty.
Fact bending as you call it is difference of opinion and interpretation. here are very few facts.
journos dont like facts, figures or anything that the intelligent person in the street would appreciate. they want to fuel the sensationalist hungry idiots!
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!
Norway pays pretty much the same per capita as we currently do so you're wrong there.
He also wrote a section on immigration (here: news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/20/eu-law-expert-responds-industrial-dishonesty-video-goes-viral/) and more specifically how brexit won't change it whatsoever.
Any perception of bias in this video is just you being unwilling to accept your Leave argument can't hold its own.
Lauren, you mentioned "uncontrolled Islamic immigration", but you don't say where from. There are no Islamic countries in the EU. With respect, you seem to be confusing economic migration from the EU (people of all religions and none who come here to work and pay taxes), with refugees (people whose homes have been destroyed by war), from outside the EU.
Norwegians as well as the Swiss pay far less into the EU, fact. Your insanity on the facts about Islamization of European land and the danger it imposes on all of us is worrying. You brainwashed regressive left ideas is threat to democracy and secular values. Norway does not want to be part of the European Union. There is endless videos on youtube of politicians as well as Norwegian public saying how glad they are to be out!
Lauren - do you understand what per capita means? I think you might need to do a bit of backpedalling. You are talking in absolute terms when we are a country of almost 70 million, and they of 5 million.
So, rather than attack me with supposed insults, try to do some basic maths.
Also, Norway thrives on oil. It gets almost 11% of its GDP from natural resources (mainly oil). It would be happy wherever it was.
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.
Au contraire, if we leave, watch American corporations impose their ideas of what workers' rights should be on your thirsty Tory government. Our laws will have to be reviewed as soon as we leave the EU. Watch what happens if we do. I am not taking that chance.
British workers rights include 5 weeks 3 days paid annual leave (including bank holidays), EU workers' rights state the minimum is 4 weeks. Statutory maternity leave in the UK is 52 weeks; according to the EU it's 14 weeks. I fail to see how the EU is protecting workers' rights in those cases?
+Dog Training min is 28 days..
+Dog Training in the UK ..
We want to Exit the Eu and we also want to exit the Single market so we are not tied to anyone and we also don't have to pay the rediculous membership fee, Simply because we want to start our own trade deals outside of the EU
When are these Eu Governmentalists going to grasp this?
We want the Dictatorship Eu to collapse so we can then embark and aid the european countries in healing after this calamitous falsification of power.
Thank You Very much a brilliant unbiased look at this Refferendum
Great arguments, dull presentation. Last few seconds he complains about students not paying attention during his lectures. Hmmm...
is that all you picked up from the Liverpool VC speech? hmmmm
If you don't like hearing what you want to hear, lectures can appear boring. To me it was refreshing to hear the absolute truth from an expert, rather than fear mongering on both sides within the media and Westminster.
I said "great arguments", which is clearly not the case with both your comments. Linda, unfortuantely great ideas also need good delivery to maximise their impact. There is a lot to learn from this #Brexit disaster. Mike, I agree that even the most 'unentertaining' lecture can be hugely interesting but I still think that it is the duty of teachers and experts to polish their presentation skills if they want to make a difference.
Only idiots need things to be glamourised. Trump glamourises his message and everyone loves it. Experts wearing tweed jackets are ignored. This will be the end of modern civilisation as we know it. Goodbye smartphones and tech,
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.
And wot will he be doing if we come out ? Some one wont's to keep his job me thinks out out out
+fhsiudhfiushiu for the life of me they keep presenting them with facts and they simply dismiss it as propaganda. Just think about it, you say he wants to keep his job but he will clock more hours of its an out vote that in turn should make him vote out. A bite to remain will just make his work the same as it was since he started it. So what are you on about?
Tells it like it is. Nobody can claim they weren't given access to all the relevant information on which to base a decision. Good luck today!
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.
Biased*
From my experience most Brexiters have firmly made up minds before hearing any counter argument whatsoever. There minds are largely made up from the start through some British Imperialist bias, disinformation from the tabloid press and xenophobia. Fact checkers show up lie after lie in the Brexit argument, but these get dismissed as 'incorrect facts'. Laughable!
You are correct. Both parties have lied and manipulated to get people on side. But thats my point. Each party has taken a corner and each are overlooking corncerns and facts that they should be paying attention to because it does not support their argument. This professor is doing the exact same. He is presenting an argument from a firm aspect without including facts from the opposition which give peoplee the freedom to make their own decisions. He is in a position were he could give each a side a informed perspective on the decisions they are making but he chose not to. In my opinion this makes him even more deseptive than both the leave and stay campaign. I will not base my decision on a one sided argument.
I don't think that his intention in this lecture is to analyse in depth the pros and cons of the permanence or exit from the EU (he would not have intended such task on a lecture but on another format, probably a book) Also, this is not an academic paper or a student's essay. This is a lecture of an expert with a clear purpose from the start: to clarify some aspects of the debate that have been deliberately misguided by the demagogues that have taken over the debate in the media during this campaign, from both sides as he points out at the beginning of the speech. Although he points at the imperfections of the EU constitution at some point, I am sure that, as a student, you will be aware of the certain restrictions on this professor's lecture, being the most obvious the time constraints. That is why he had to expand certain aspects of the lecture that were left out due to lack of time ( such as immigration) on writing. Of course he makes clear his point and position on this debate, fair enough, he is entitled to do so after his argumentation.
Yes you could never sum up all of the merits or failures of the EU in any great detail within a 25 minute time frame on UA-cam. It's an incredibly large and complex subject.
The whole point of this video was an opinion piece, a summary on why he believes staying in the EU is in the country's best interests.
The difference is his opinion, unlike most others is informed by 20 years of experience and a Phd. For the OP to say that he fails for not presenting a balanced thesis is like criticizing a cat for not being a dog. It's not meant to be a thesis or a dissertation.
Either listen to what he has to say or don't. It's that simple.
yes Michael, it has turned out as you said and now what do we do???