 Rwy'n iawn am gwybod i'r ddau Cyffan Rhaid Afwr i ar obtenio gweithio gyda disbyn. Yna, mae'r dda i gyfanig Uniddor, mae'n dwi'n gwaith gyda siwtion yng nglynyddiant i ddau'r ddau Cymru, a'r ddau cyntaf i'w gweithio gyda siwtion. Oherwydd mae'n gydych chi, a'r ddau cyffan i gweithio gyda'u gyda siwtion ac oedd yn diolog. Fe gwybod wedi'u ateb ydyb yn Ddiogelol Hynny'r cychwyn i'r diogelol o Brexit regbes the public either don't have a say. With remarkable presence here at the European University we've actually been looking at the public's attitudes to the European Union for 10 years. We've been doing it and I've led this work from the Center for Citizenship Identities in Governance and really what I want to show you then is in 3 steps. First of all, how the public speaks about political issues, then I'm going to tell you about six public narratives on the European Union, probably quite quick, but we might pick them up later on in the discussion, and then let's pick up this one. Are we moving now from representative democracy to direct democracy? Have we got a little bit of a taste for it now in the UK? We've had our referendum and we rather like this. Are these presidents clearly like Twitter and tweets and Prime Ministers? Do we need this whole house of commons things anymore? Or have we been rather bruised by these binaries and would we like to head back now? I think a good place to start then is the 12 objectives that were articulated that Richard referred to then, this idea of a white paper that gives 12 objectives. Some people felt it was a flimsy document, but for analysts like myself it was very useful to have something that starts to frame up the next two years. My priority I think is objective one, which is about providing certainty and clarity. If you look at the section on public and parliamentary involvement in scrutiny, have a look at this one, 1.6. We will continue to build a national consensus around our negotiating position by listening and talking to as many organisations, companies and institutions as possible. Have you spotted a group of people who've disappeared? Interesting. Let's see if we can find them. If you look at 1.11, to enable the government to achieve the best outcome in the negotiations, we will need to keep our positions closely held and we will need at times to be careful about the commentary we make public. Our fundamental responsibility to the people of the UK is to ensure that we secure the very best deal possible from the negotiations. We're not on direct, we're not on representative either. This is one way communication. And the argument here that's being presented I would argue to you is that it's a matter of security now that certain cards have to be played carefully to the chest. We, my colleagues, colleagues like Helene, Paula Battle and Carol Rootsness, what we did is we did a poll just for this Open Minds event. We just asked people, the public, using Twitter, what would you prefer? You've had a taste of direct democracy, but if you had to choose one, which one would you choose? And you can see there the answer, 77%, so they would prefer representative democracy. Now it's 315 people. I did have a quick look to see who they were. It's not easy to work it out on Twitter, but I don't think that one group, if you like, pro or anti group pushed that. I think there is something going on now about people feeling like they'd like a representative process. Now I am a social psychologist and what we do is we do things like this. We show this to our participants and then ask them to comment on it. So take a look at that and tell me where it takes you. Or think about it. I'm not going to ask anyone to say anything, I promise you, but have a think about where it takes you for a minute or so. Gosh, you're all very polite. This is where it took my participants. I have to say I did ask them this round 2012. So a little bit cooler than the conditions we're in now. Well personally what I think it's saying is this is the way forward for the future. Have one world, get rid of all these different nationalities, like what the European Union did. Have one world, one race, human race, a flag for the human race. I'm sure it would reduce all the costs, border controls, people thinking this is my country, not your country, conflict, all that. We'd get rid of all that because you wouldn't be able to say England, Italy, but just be one world. Wherever you want to live, you can live. Look at the ideals there. Don't think too much about the argument and whether you agree with the argument. Just look at the way this person is developing their argument, bringing in other voices, bringing in the economic rationalities and so on to work out their position. Let's move to Glasgow. You'll see those MMC numbers at the top and I'll explain them in a second. This guy, I'd love to show you, play you this recording actually because it sounds like a marketing person. They immediately say no skies, no limits with the European Union. So yeah definitely you know European Union gives you much more opportunities to just do things globally. What most of our countries being part of the European need to do is just adjust their laws, to create some kind of one law, an integrated law. Just make people, the whole of Europe, just a massive part of the globe. Now go smaller to part of the globe, not the whole globe like the person before. We need to go the other way now, don't we? This is a nurse in Gothenburg. She's moved to live in different cities. Come back to Gothenburg and when I've asked her, you know, do you think you're going to move again, she said, no, I'm settled now. For some reason I don't like it. It's the European Union flag, isn't it? I don't agree with the European Union if the European Union is more or less trying to make all countries equal and similar. And I don't think you can do that overnight. I can't even see the reason for doing that. Notice same information but being used differently. European Union spoke about having open borders and it's actually becoming more strict. It feels like the European Union was created because we wanted to be stronger towards the United States. And then she articulates the difference between American federalism and the supranational European Union project really challenges the idea that the ordinary public can't think these things through with a little bit of stimulus material. So one quick slide, this is just to show you how I work. We started as I say early 2008 before the crash by the way in Stockholm in Edinburgh and then building with my collaborators Gothenburg, Glasgow, Dublin, Dusseldorf and London in. Right at the beginning, I must say this, at the early part of the study, it's an interview, about 90 minutes at a game of two halves sort of situation. What we do is we allow people to talk about their degree of mobility. Have they moved? Would they like to move? If they haven't moved, we have 50% migrants, 50% non-migrants and they get to talk that all through before we start asking them questions about the European Union. And what I found, if you can handle this slide, this is the most busiest slide downhill after this, okay? I promise. Okay, what happens when you start asking people about their mobility is that, and this is the one take home I would really recommend, is that the public have degrees of mobility. They are not down that end there, non-migrant generational. Those people do exist but we really struggle to get them in the sample actually. We have to really ask people to find them. Some people have some degree of migrant descent or they're married to a migrant or like the nurse they've been and lived in other countries then they've moved back. They're internal, they've moved between Northern Ireland and Scotland and so on. It's racing ahead of me there, sorry. Let's go back to it actually because we need to finish that one. In Britain we have a lot of this by the way. We have a lot of people who've moved just once and they've really no plans to move again really. They'll just say the kids consider themselves to be Scottish or English and so on, serial settled and then we move to these more mobile positions, people who know already that they're going to go back to the country of origin. I must say I used to work in international relations and involved travelling to Brussels. Lots of people in position 10 in Brussels, people have been moving all along. They were often born in their own as third country children if you've heard of that expression. One parent from one country, another from another country and they're born in a third country and quite often when you ask them, do you think you're settled or do you think you'll move again? They'll instantly say, oh no, we're thinking about moving again so they enjoy movement. So findings then. As I say, we're getting caught on this foxpup public at the moment. The BBC stops someone in the street, they say something that neatly falls between the two binaries, job done kind of thing. What we're finding in our social psychological research is this ability not really to hold on to strong identities that are intractable but rather to move, bring in other perspectives and work with events and political stories. Something that I think is a little bit more stable is world views and that people understand their position across the cities that we've worked in in relation to how they think the world fits together. Last few slides now then. The six ones we've identified in the study and this is all out there by the way and if you're interested in this because I'm moving so quickly then just catch me on Twitter and I can send you these things. So national sovereignty position, that's the one that I think we do, is framing the debate at the moment and that's an anti-position. The nation in Europe position also occurred in our study. We didn't get it so much in England, we got it more in Scotland but I have to say the two countries that we got it in most was Ireland and Germany. The pragmatic institutional position is a position where you're more concerned with what you do for a living and so on and you become quite detached. This is the fourth one, cities end. Some of my participants simply saw themselves as from their city so they would just say look I'm a Londoner, that's who I am. I'm not interested in Europe or any of these debates. That's how I see the world. I see the world. They often saw the world in terms of other cities. Then we have freedom through mobility going a little bit further than the freedom to move. This is this no skies, no limits. This is people whose world they feel the world is made pleasurable, enjoyable and worth participating in through mobility. They see mobility as a source of opportunity rather than constraint. Finally the one world narrative which I think we feel like we're hearing but actually this is the first guy that I showed you who is the one who wanted everybody to move as freely as they could, a border free world. It's not global Britain which of course has that sense of that. That's actually national sovereignty. So to tie up then, have the public had their say. This is the question for us now. There is undoubtedly a disconnect between Parliament and public dialogue and I would propose that that is building a bit of attention. The difficulty for the public now is that they keep getting presented back to them, this Vox Pop public which doesn't really suit them, it's not really representing them. Which is why I think we got that poll result that the public are trying to switch back to representative democracy because what they're trying to do is find a form of democracy that reflects the variety of their positions. So in that case the task for the UK Parliament then is perhaps to reconsider that esprit de corps or to be a little less charitable bunker mentality and give the public an opportunity to express the varieties of their views. Thank you for listening.