If you're really struggling to separate EU fact from fiction...

[Appletreeblossom123]

I would recommend the Full Fact website.

Description of Full Fact taken from its website:

"Full Fact is the UK’s independent, non-partisan, factchecking charity. We check claims made by politicians, the media, pressure groups, and other voices in public debate, and push for corrections where necessary. We also work with government departments and academic research institutions to improve the quality and communication of technical information at source, and campaign for greater transparency in the public arena.

"We don’t support any view or political party. Our mission is to improve the quality of public debate, and to equip the public with the best information possible to make up their own minds. We provide links to all our sources so that you don’t have to take our word for anything – you can also check for yourself.

"Our commitment to transparency extends to our funding – find out more here."

Here is a link to the section of the Full Fact website dealing with the EU fullfact.org/europe/

Have they submitted their accounts to the Charity Commission yet? Last time I looked they were overdue. Intersting list of Trustees too.

ArgyMargy, I agree that some of what is being said is in the nature of prediction, but my observation is that there is a very big problem with people making statements that are simply untrue. For example, Michael Gove claimed in an interview that, "“There are billions of pounds that we send to the European Union every year, and the IFS has pointed out that if we took that money back, we could spend it on our NHS, we could use it to reduce VAT on fuel." The Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a specific denial making clear that it had not said what Michael Gove has claimed. Clearly, the IFS and Michael Gove may have different views on the economic impact of a Brexit, but it was very clearly misleading for Michael Gove imply that the IFS was saying that leaving the EU would free up money for the NHS. A person has the right to agree or disagree with the IFS's view, but misrepresenting what the IFS says is in my view immoral.

Link to source : www.ifs.org.uk/about/blog/346

For example, Michael Gove claimed in an interview that, "“There are billions of pounds that we send to the European Union every year, and the IFS has pointed out that if we took that money back, we could spend it on our NHS, we could use it to reduce VAT on fuel." The Institute of Fiscal Studies issued a specific denial making clear that it had not said what Michael Gove has claimed. Clearly, the IFS and Michael Gove may have different views on the economic impact of a Brexit, but it was very clearly misleading for Michael Gove imply that the IFS was saying that leaving the EU would free up money for the NHS. A person has the right to agree or disagree with the IFS's view, but misrepresenting what the IFS says is in my view immoral.

We pay £billions to the EU each year. If we didn't pay it to the EU it would removed as a commitment from the Treasury books.

This article from the Scotsman says

The IFS said Britain could use its contribution to the EU - estimated at £8 billion a year - to help shore up its finances if it voted for Brexit.

www.scotsman.com/news/institute-for-fiscal-studies-rejects-eu-propaganda-arm-label-1-4137731

So it seems the Scotsman's statement backs what Gove said.

Springing, why are you choosing to believe a third party report about what the IFS says rather than the IFS's own website? And if the IFS did say that, why did it feel the need to issue a statement specifically to contradict the way in which its views had been portrayed by Michael Gove?

Have they submitted their accounts to the Charity Commission yet? Last time I looked they were overdue.

According to the Charity Commission website, "Until the accounts and Annual Returns for the first full financial period after registration are received or become overdue, newly registered charities are recorded on the charity overview page as “newly registered” and their banner is outlined in green."

This is the case for Full Fact. Link to Charity Commission website attached. apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1158683&SubsidiaryNumber=0

So according to the Charity Commission website, not only are Full Fact's accounts not overdue now, but they have never been overdue. So I have to ask Springing on what basis are you asserting that that "the last time you looked" the accounts were overdue, despite the Charity Commission's website saying that they have never been overdue?

Regarding your comment about it being an interesting set of trustees, yes I agree that it is interesting: (a) that the trustees include members of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, as well as trustees with no party political affiliation; and (b) that the website states, "We have trustees who fall on either side of the EU referendum."

Right I am off to bed now, having devoted some considerable time this evening to fact checking the statements made by a number of posters on this thread. If there are any MNers out who feel that they are struggling to tell fact from fiction, I would repeat what I said at the beginning of this thread, that I would really recommend Full Fact because of the fact that it is a charity that is neither pro-Leave nor pro-Remain. But don't take my word for it, check out the website for yourself. You will be able to see for yourself the fact checking carried out by this charity in relation to statements made on both sides of the campaign. You will also be able to see details of who works for Full Fact and how they are funded, as they have made considerable efforts to be transparent about that on their website.

'More or less?' On radio 4 yesterday was excellent. They systematically went through all of the statistical claims of both sides and investigated them. It was the most useful thing I've heard in the whole campaign. I highly recommend looking it up on iPlayer

Thanks Terrified. I think, "More or less" is an excellent programme, generally, but I haven't yet listened to the specific episode you mention. For MNers, not familiar with the "More or less" programme, I'll explain that it's a long running Radio 4 programme that focuses on the way statistics are cited in public discussions, and delves into the detail to establish whether oft-cited statistics stand up to scrutiny.

Have just seen that Mumsnet's webchat with a panel of experts tomorrow includes Will Moy, a director of Full Fact, so my original post was more topical than I realised! I note that Mumsnet (which to the best of my knowledge has taken a neutral stance on the EU referendum) describes Full Fact as "a non-partisan fact-checking charity". Anyway, take note all the pro-Leavers who have sought to query the non-partisan nature of Full Fact! If you think you have uncovered evidence that Full Fact is pro-EU rather than non-partisan, you have the opportunity to put your points direct to an actual director of Full Fact tomorrow.

Terrified thanks, I've listened to that and thought it was very good. Unfortunately I suspect many people who want to leave the EU are the same kind of people who think that anything the BBC produces is left-leaning and untrustworthy, and we should get rid of the BBC Charter & licence fee etc etc.