 Hello, I'm Julie Smith. I'm director of the European Centre in the Polish Department here at Cambridge and a member of the House of Lords. One of the things that bothers me about the whole referendum so far is that the debate on both sides has been somewhat ill-informed, ill-tempered and seems to be based on assertion rather than fact. Older members of the public have been saying, we want the facts and when we hear people suggesting there is information, the other side simply rubbishes it. And I think this has been to the severe detriment of open, effective debate in the UK and in the next 10 days I would really like that to change. I think we need to be much more open about how the European Union works and the implications of leaving for ordinary citizens. In particular it's very easy for critics to say the EU is undemocratic. It doesn't work properly. Well, how far is it undemocratic? There is an elected European Parliament. The United Kingdom has 71 members of that European Parliament all elected on the basis of proportional representation. Compare that with the House of Commons, which is not elected by proportional representation. The government of this country was elected by 24% of eligible voters. Doesn't necessarily sound like a majority. And the House of Lords in which I sit isn't elected at all. The only elected members are 90 hereditary peers. So for believers to stand up in the House of Lords as some of them do and say, the EU is not democratic, I think they should look to their own chamber first. So the European Parliament is elected, but also the other legislative body in the European Union is the Council of Ministers and every member state is represented there as well. So British ministers go and they have a seat at the table and they can vote. So again there is a democratic element and a representative element. The UK isn't ignored, we have a seat at the table. And that's true in all the EU institutions. So the European Union does have democratic elements and it does give the opportunity for the United Kingdom to be represented. If we walked away, if we voted to leave, formally we could regain sovereignty as the leavers say. But in practice that would make the United Kingdom less influential. We would still have to abide by the rules of the European Union if we want to export to it. If we wanted to be part of the internal market or the single market as some people are advocating, then we'd still have to abide by free movement of goods, capital, services and in particular people. Which is exactly what the leavers are concerned about. And even if we did that, we wouldn't have any influence over the decisions. At the moment we have a seat at all those tables, if we left, we wouldn't have that voice at all. One of the issues that so often hits the headlines in the UK is the European Commission. Often seen as an unelected bureaucracy and vilified as such. It does have a significant role in the European Union. But it doesn't have the right to make ultimate decisions. So the European Commission in many ways is a civil service. Yes it proposes legislation but it's the European Parliament and the council of ministers that decide on the legislation. So it's the equivalent of Whitehall putting proposals that are then agreed by Parliament. And the European Commission has commissioners one representing each member state. There is a president of the commission at the moment Jean-Claude Juncker. But each member state is able to nominate its commissioner. And at the moment the UK commissioner responsible for financial services is Jonathan Hill. Who used to be leader of the House of Lords. The main work of the commission is essentially that of a civil service. It's a relatively small civil service. It's often seen as a huge bloated bureaucracy. But in practice it's an organisation about the same size as Leeds City Council. So we shouldn't over exaggerate how big it is or the role that it plays. The important thing is it proposes legislation and then the democratic bodies of the European Union, the Parliament and the council of ministers make the decisions. So the commission does have an important role in setting the agenda. It does look at how European legislation works and can work. But it also consults, takes advice and isn't able to force the United Kingdom or any other member state to do things. More recently the European Court of Justice has come in the firing line. And there's a sense for some of those who are concerned about the European Union to think that the role of courts has become too important. We're used in the United Kingdom to talk about sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty. And to put most of our emphasis on the role of Westminster, particularly the House of Commons and the primacy of the House of Commons. But ever since we joined the common market back in the 1970s, there has been the principle that European law is supreme over national law. Not everywhere, not in every policy area. It doesn't tell us whether we can have tax credits or not. But in areas where the European Union has competence, areas like environmental policy, then EU law does Trump national law. But that was something we signed up to. Some things that the UK and the Westminster Parliament has agreed to over the years. It's not a question of the Court of Justice coming in and telling us what to do. It's certainly not a court usurping rights from the United Kingdom or any other sovereign member state. So I think sometimes the role of the Court of Justice is exaggerated. It does play a role. But very often that role is one that actually supports what the United Kingdom is doing. So we need to be a little bit careful if you start criticising institutions and want to disempower them. Be careful what you wish for. Because you may find that actually some of the rulings were in our interest rather more than they were in the interests of the European Commission or some amorphous thing called Brussels.