Before you vote.. please check whether your perceptions are in line with the figures (following the ipsos poll...)

[nearlyhellokitty]

The EU referendum is such a critical decision... but seems that there are massive misperceptions.
www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Interesting that only 60% know that MEPs are elected, that question has been in the back of my mind whenever I see people comment about unelected EU, lack of democracy etc.

The turnout's around 30% for European elections isn't it? I wondered if only 30% of the population were aware the elections were happening.

[nearlyhellokitty]

caroldecker i might be wrong about this but I understood the material errors were at Member State level regarding administration of funds. the general figures are correct,

[nearlyhellokitty]

caroldecker - This is the reference - In 2014, the international investment into the UK was £1,034bn. This is the stock measure of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the UK, which means it is the accumulated value of all past investments in the UK from international investors. The share of the 2014 stock FDI contributed by the listed trade partners or groups of trade partners are as follows: EU (48%); US (24%); Switzerland (4%); Japan (4%); China (including Hong Kong) (1%); Rest of the world (19%). Data are taken from the ONS data on Foreign Direct Investment Involving UK Companies for 2014, published in December 2015.

[Millyonthefloss]

Itsallgoingtobe ... I find it slightly terrifying that so many people are going to vote based on their lived experience

Can you explain why?

[NotCitrus]

Caroldecker The EU accounts are no more error-filled than for other organisations - there are cases where contracts might be awarded without following the whole tender process, for example, but where most people would agree that's done for good reasons. The auditors have not had a problem with accounting for income.

In comparison, UK accounts are pretty similar.

"As ever, the truth is nuanced. The European Court of Auditors (ECA), an EU body set up to examine the accounts of the Union, signed off on the 2014 accounts as reliable—something it's done for every set of figures since 2007. But it did find that payments made were materially affected by error.

Getting it right or reporting it right

It might sound counterintuitive that accounts can be signed off on as reliable while there are irregular payments being made. But the two can comfortably go hand in hand.

When the ECA signs off on the accounts, it's saying that they were prepared according to international standards, and present a "true and fair" view of the EU's finances.

The ECA is also asked whether the EU received income and made payments in line with the relevant rules and regulations. While income passed with flying colours, spending didn't.

The EU budget contained €142.5 billion of spending in 2014. In every area of the budget (apart from administration), and overall, enough spending fell outside of the proper procedures to pass the 2% 'materiality threshold'—the point at which the auditors view these 'errors' as significant.

Overall, 4.4% of the EU's spending didn't follow the rules and accordingly shouldn't have been paid out.

This can cover quite a wide range of situations and isn't synonymous with waste or fraud, according to the ECA.

For instance, one way to run afoul of the rules is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. While generally this is a bad idea, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.

Other issues are recipients of funding claiming costs that aren't eligible under the rules, and farmers over-stating how much land they have.

The ECA said that 22 of 1,200 transactions it inspected during the audit might have been fraudulent, and referred them for further investigation.

The Times' "€133.6 billion" figure appears to be for total spending on things other than administration. While it's correct that spending in that €133.6 billion was "materially affected by error", it's not the case that the entire block of spending was "irregular or possibly illegal"; it just means that some of the spending within that total didn't follow the rules. The same could be said of the entire €142.5 billion EU budget." - from Full Fact.

[caroldecker]

nearly Those numbers are the total amounts invested (ie investments made many years ago), my link is to the new investments in 2013 and 2014. IE the EU have historically made investments in the UK, juts are doing a lot less now, whilst investment from outside the EU is increasing.
Notcitrus if you know anything about audit reports, you would know what a clean one looks like and the EU do not get a clean audit report, a company not getting a clean audit report causes major headlines and, normally, a change in management.

[nearlyhellokitty]

figures are still correct.

[OhtoblazeswithElvira]

caroldecker I know something about auditing and the phrase "clean audit report" is not part of it. EU accounts have been signed as giving a true and fair view every year. Yes there have been qualifications but the auditors still sign them off. This is the opposite of the myth that is being peddled.

Auditors issue qualifying letters all the time, with major or minor issues... I have seen letters pointing out erroneous transactions of £100 for turnovers of millions ie immaterial stuff... What makes headlines is when auditors state that the accounts do NOT represent a true and fair view of the organisation's affairs... that has never happened with the EU accounts.

[caroldecker]

ohtoblazes Very few companies have qualifications. The auditors have given a true and fair view since 2007, prior to that, it did not.
Quotes for 2004 audit report:

The Court concluded that CAP expenditure, viewed as a whole, was still materially affected by errors.

For both programming periods (1994 to 1999 and 2000 to 2006), numerous errors of legality and regularity were detected in the expenditure included in the declarations leading to payments by the Commission.

n 2004 the accounting system still followed, to a large extent, cash-based accounting principles and did not make it possible to distinguish between capital and non-capital expenditure, between final payments and pre-financing, or even to determine the amount of debts and receivables.

Not sure I would trust a system like that or be convinced the people running it had a clue where money came from or went to.

[caroldecker]

Sorry, link for those interested.

[disappoint15]

Unfortunately, Nearlyhellokitty, as you probably have realised, you cannot reason people out of an position into which they have not reasoned themselves. And there is precious little reason in many of those in the Leave echo chamber.

This is why these threads are full of people saying that facts are patronising, that their experience yesterday in the supermarket carpark must mean that everyone had exactly the same experience in their supermarket carpark and that any data that contradicts their preferred worldview is scaremongering.

[caroldecker]

Nearlyhello I did not dispute the figures were correct, just that EU investment in the UK is falling, and other countries are increasing.

[SpringingIntoAction]

It's not about -
DIY recessions
Immigration figures
Trade deals
GDP forecasts
Environmental issues
Arrest warrants
Erasmus programme

and so on and so on.

These are side shows.

It's about living in a country that is sovereign and self-determning. By that I mean a country that can

1. make its own laws to suit its own needs instead of passing laws made in Brussels that can be obertrned by foreign EU judges
   
2. raise its own taxes on the gods and services it wishes to tax at rates it wishes to levy - instead of having to ask the EU nicely if it can reduce the tax on Tampons - and be refused
   
3. can trade feely with the world, instead of being prohibited from making trade deals while it's an EU member
   
4. can control its own borders - instead of having to accept every EU citizen who wishes to live here
   
5. can defend itself.Instead of being coerced into an EU army that EU President Junckers says is nceessary 'to defend the EU's foreign policy'. Scary.
   
   There is absolutely nothing more important than living in a country that has those basic sovereign rights.
   
   If you don;t have these , you are not living in a democracy.
   
   Democracy is priceless It's what countries have gone to war to preserve.
   
   I want to LEAVE the EU and regain UK sovereignty.

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

I would read the footnotes before posting facts

They are based on estimations

An estimate is not a fact

Government has underestimated figures as we have seen in recent government publications

So of course people are ignoring these facts especially when it comes down to immigration as they are wrong over and over again

Going back to the research paper if you read further and look at the links of where the information comes from (office of national statistics) it's not good reading for the remain campaign. It doesn't support UKIP fear tactics but regardless the numbers are higher than any government would care to admit.
in the year between 2013/14 immigration population grew by 7.2% not sure exactly what percentage was from the EU (who does ... later in paper states that increase largely driven by increase from EU residents)

Then if you research a little further some of the estimations are based on 2011 census and many people will argue that there has been huge changes since then

So this is where papers like this fall apart as they are the hard facts people want

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

Should read not the hard facts ....

It's early

[mollie123]

its
I find it slightly terrifying that so many people are going to vote based on their lived experience (anecdata) and find facts patronising.

and this also applies to many of the 'remain' supporters

[nearlyhellokitty]

Enthusiasm - again you're focusing narrowly on one question. Even if the figures are slightly wrong - the perception is way out! There are also plenty of other issues. Tbh I find this typifies the debate. You post something about a wide set of issues and people just send out attacks on immigration. What about the MEPS and other points? That's just objectively true.

[nearlyhellokitty]

Carol decker - you said 'these aren't facts' - yes they are.

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

Again it's my first post on this thread and someone further up the thread discussed the investment side they also posted from the office for national statics

And facts can't be slightly wrong can they

It's based on asking 1000 people that's a tiny tiny number of people to base perception facts on you have to take into account the questions asked and that statics can be manipulated by how the question is asked

[nearlyhellokitty]

enthusiasm well it's certainly true that there's 'lies, damned lies and statistics' but generally speaking the facts stand..The person further up the thread agrees that the figures are in fact correct and full fact (the independent fact checker) shows that she's wrong on the audit.

Still the stuff about MEPs eg is just true.

[StepintotheLightleave]

Surely it's important that people have full access to all the information

It would be very helpful to once and for all have access to figures but the sad truth is, this country is woefully poor when it comes to counting heads and collecting data.

We know the Labour government predicted 14 thousand polish people may or may come here. which led to a flood of thousands.

This led to a massive shortfall in council head counts which in turn led to a short fall in council budgets which led to chaos, suffering and services pulled from other areas to cope. we still have no idea how many people are actually here, and we never will. so whilst I certainly look at charts and figures I always keep in mind, there is no real way to measure this.
Because there is no way to count it.

[Motheroffourdragons]

Good post kitty. I saw this yesterday. I do think though that the leavers will not listen to anything, just shouting project fear and scaremongering and immigration at every opportunity.

[RedToothBrush]

Its like when anecdotes trump evidence based medicine.

Its like all muslims are terrorists because one muslim acted a particular way and it was all over the news.

I'm not really into 'gut feeling' for that reason. It has a tendancy to assess 'risk' inaccurately due to bias which can be harmful to society.

But yep, that's patronising. I guess we should be funding homeopathy and restrictive diets for cancer then?

Or is that 'different' because its not immigration we are talking about?

[StepintotheLightleave]

Don't you think your over reaching there red? Your making strange equations.
However when it comes to any advice and numbers, just look at the recent turn around in how we are all supposed to be eating proper fats now, which we have been told to avoid for decades? I am sure previous evidence was based on proper figures too. Figures and research have a place just as personal experience does, we must all look at the big picture

I am more likely to listen to someone like Frank Field, than stats that I doubt have been based on proper rounded research.

[StepintotheLightleave]

Mother I find your post quite distasteful really when people like Frank Field are trying to speak out for the poor, but then I realize some poster rely on the EU for work and have personal interests at stake. The true poor of this country wont matter to them