John B

Ten of the world’s leading economists have issued a warning about the consequences of the UK leaving the EU as the City prepares for the pound to plunge and shares to fall in the event of a Brexit vote in Thursday’s referendum. This is a tough choice...do I listen to the rantings of Nigel Boris and Wes, or do I listen to 10 of the world's leading economists........... In other news former and current supermarket bosses say Brexit would be 'catastrophic for millions of families' Some of the most senior figures in British retailing have signed an open letter today saying that Brexit would be “catastrophic for millions of ordinary families” because it would lead to prices going up. The letter has been publicised by Britain Stronger in Europe. Their claims are supported by a report from USDAW, the shopworkers union, saying that workers would worse off if Britain leaves the EU because of the fall in the value of the pound and the impact of tariffs on imported goods. Johnson condemns UKIPs ‘Breaking Point’ poster, saying it implied refugees were 'bad people' which is a good thing In an open letter to The Independent, vice chancellors from almost every major higher education institution in Britain say they are 'gravely concerned' about a vote to leave The pound has hit its highest level since the start of the year, in a fresh signal that Brexit fears are easing. But the only way to ease Brexit fears is to vote remain

You raise an interesting point because as one of the larger countries the UK have more votes in the 352 available in the Council but Norway and Switzerland have none but have to live with the outcome of any vote. The 352 votes are distributed as follows: France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom: 29 votes each Spain, Poland: 27 votes each Romania: 14 votes Netherlands: 13 votes Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal: 12 votes each Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden: 10 votes each Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland: 7 votes each Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia: 4 votes each Malta: 3 votes A qualified majority is reached in the Council if the following conditions are met: a majority of member states - 15 member states - vote in favour a minimum of 260 votes out of the total 352 votes are cast in favour I have found information relating to the UK and voting outcome The UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government in the 2009-15 period when the Tories were in government jumping from being on the minority (losing) side only 2.6% of the time in 2004-09 to being on the minority (losing) side 12.3% of the time in the 2009-15 period. Also, the next most frequent “losing” governments, Germany and Austria, were only on the minority side 5.4% of the time in this period. So we win a really high level of votes but not all and is dependent on the Government in power at the time the Tories always want less regulation sometimes with regard to workers rights Most of the votes are for regulations so that the single market runs smoothly so no country gets an unfair advantage The EU does not set our VAT rates in any way it just stipulates the minimum which cannot be less than 15% .The Tories have raised it from 15% to 17.5% in 1991 and from 17.5% in 2011 despite saying they would not. Fuel on VAT cannot be lower than 5% The introduction of VAT on domestic fuel and power went ahead in April 1994, but the increase from 8% to 17.5% in April 1995 was scuppered in December 1994, after the government lost the vote in parliament In its 1997 general election manifesto, the Labour Party pledged to reduce VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5% After gaining power, the new Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown announced in June 1997 that the lower rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power would be reduced from 8% to 5% with effect from 1 September 1997 In November 1997, Brown announced that the VAT on installation of energy saving materials would be reduced from 17.5% to 5% from 1 July 1998. Brown subsequently reduced VAT from 17.5% to 5% on sanitary protection products (from 1 January 2001); children's car seats (from 1 April 2001); conversion and renovation of certain residential properties (from 12 May 2001); contraceptives (from 1 July 2006); and smoking cessation products (from 1 July 2007). So we really have control on VAT which is a just a tax raising exercise Of course if VAT was reduced to zero the government would have to raise some other tax if it wanted the same amount of tax to be raised. Thanks to Gordon Brown OAPs get a £200 lump sum each year which covers their VAT. I don’t believe the EU comes up with that many laws which are not acceptable as I doubt the countries would agree to them. The Commission is composed of the College of Commissioners of 28 members, including the President and Vice-Presidents. The Commissioners, one from each EU country, are the Commission's political leadership during a 5-year term. Each Commissioner is assigned responsibility for specific policy areas by the President The European Parliament has the power at any time to force the entire Commission to resign through a vote of no confidence which is similar to our parliament This requires a vote that makes up at least two-thirds of those voting and a majority of the total membership of the Parliament. While it has never used this power, it threatened to use it against the Commission headed by Jacques Santer in 1999 over allegations of corruption. In response, the Santer Commission resigned en masse of its own accord, the only time a Commission has done so.

I agree with you Charlie but it is not surprising that many of the electorate do not believe the government with regard to the economy as they have constantly been lied to since 2010 when VAT was raised after saying they would not - VAT is a regressive tax hitting the poorest hardest They then introduced an austerity program backed by low wages and zero hours contracts which has led to more poverty and the lowering of the standard of living for most whilst raising the standard of living many of the wealthiest if inflation and oil prices were not low things would be even worse. How they got back in GE15 beggars belief but was probably due to scaremongering lies about the Labour Party and a willing Press. This time during the referendum scaremongering does not go down well and the Press is not willing and they need the Labour Party and if Brexit takes place they will probably blame the Labour Party for their own incompetence. I think the scaremongering of the In campaign has a great deal of truth but has not been articulated in a sensible way but the Out scaremongering does not have that much truth. The balance of evidence is that Brexit would be a major macroeconomic disaster starting on Friday morning leading to more poverty unemployment and a lower standard of living in the UK and elsewhere in the world This will fall hardest on the poorer of this country like the Tory austerity has done here and the Eurozone austerity has done in Greece. George Soros the speculator involved in Black Wednesday in 1992 agrees and the following has been written by him. My 60 years of experience tells me the pound will plummet, along with your living standards after Brexit. The only winners will be speculators Brexiters seem to recognise that a sharp devaluation would be almost inevitable after Brexit, but argue that this would be healthy, despite the big losses of purchasing power for British households. In 1992 the devaluation actually proved very helpful to the British economy, and subsequently I was even praised for my role in helping to bring it about. But I don’t think the 1992 experience would be repeated. That devaluation was healthy because the government was relieved of its obligation to “defend” an overvalued pound with damagingly high interest rates after the breakdown of the exchange rate mechanism. This time, a large devaluation would be much less benign than in 1992, for at least three reasons. First, the Bank of England would not cut interest rates after a Brexit devaluation (as it did in 1992 and also after the large devaluation of 2008) because interest rates are already at the lowest level compatible with the stability of British banks. That, incidentally, is another reason to worry about Brexit. For if a fall in house prices and loss of jobs causes a recession after Brexit, as is likely, there will be very little that monetary policy can do to stimulate the economy and counteract the consequent loss of demand. Second, the UK now has a very large current account deficit – much larger, relatively, than in 1992 or 2008. In fact Britain is more dependent than at any time in history on inflows of foreign capital. As the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said, Britain “depends on the kindness of strangers”. The devaluations of 1992 and 2008 encouraged greater capital inflows, especially into residential and commercial property, but also into manufacturing investments. But after Brexit, the capital flows would almost certainly move the other way, especially during the two-year period of uncertainty while Britain negotiates its terms of divorce with a region that has always been – and presumably will remain – its biggest trading and investment partner. Third, a post-Brexit devaluation is unlikely to produce the improvement in manufacturing exports seen after 1992, because trading conditions would be too uncertain for British businesses to undertake new investments, hire more workers or otherwise add to export capacity. For all these reasons I believe the devaluation this time would be more like the one in 1967, when Harold Wilson famously declared that “the pound in your pocket has not been devalued”, but the British people disagreed with him, quickly noticing that the cost of imports and foreign holidays were rising sharply and that their true living standards were going down. Meanwhile financial speculators, back then called the Gnomes of Zurich, were making large profits at Britain’s expense. Today, there are speculative forces in the markets much bigger and more powerful. And they will be eager to exploit any miscalculations by the British government or British voters. A vote for Brexit would make some people very rich – but most voters considerably poorer. I want people to know what the consequences of leaving the EU would be before they cast their votes, rather than after. A vote to leave could see the week end with a Black Friday, and serious consequences for ordinary people. I think the Government also could have done more to sort out the concerns of the electorate affected by large numbers of new EU citizens. The recent concessions obtained from the EU on Benefits should have been implemented earlier . More houses schools and general infrastructure should have been funded in areas of high migration Attention should have been paid to checking that Employers were paying the going rate and not undercutting UK workers. Recruiting for worker only in the EU should have been banned. They were only interested in reducing the deficit caused by the Global Banking Crash and getting re-elected I think the electorate can see them as a shallow government which had many of the leading Brexiteers in leading positions piling on the misery

It is a lie to say that Turkey are about to join the EU they might join in the future so might Russia but not for decades surely helping Turkey to become a Western democracy is a good thing is it not But as I only have three posts I would like to reply to the out warrior Wes Tender on Switzerland and not discuss blatant fear mongering further Switzerland’s longstanding application to join the EU has not had a significant impact on the country’s politics for more than 20 years, as its accession negotiations have been suspended since 1992 in the wake of a referendum to join the European Economic Area, when the Swiss voted down the idea of closer ties with the EU. Some politicians even argued that the vote was an unnecessary formal procedure that didn’t make much sense as Switzerland is no longer regarded by the EU as an official candidate to join the block so not particularly relevant but more relevant is that other small Balkan countries wish to join as they see economic advantages to joining the EU. If we leave do you fancy Boris for PM and Farage an unelected member of the House of Lords is Boris going to close the unelected Lords and what is he going to do about the monarchy as we cant vote them out. I agree with Michael Heseltine that Boris does not seem to have the right values to be PM not that Cameron has either The reason I mentioned this is that I saw this fascinating insight into Brexit and Boris Johnson, by his former colleague Martin Fletcher, a former Times foreign correspondent For 25 years our press has fed the British public a diet of distorted, mendacious and relentlessly hostile stories about the EU - and the journalist who set the tone was Boris Johnson. I know this because I was appointed Brussels correspondent of The Times in 1999, a few years after Johnson’s stint there for The Telegraph, and I had to live with the consequences. Johnson, sacked by The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quote, made his mark in Brussels not through fair and balanced reporting, but through extreme euro-scepticism. He seized every chance to mock or denigrate the EU, filing stories that were undoubtedly colourful but also grotesquely exaggerated or completely untrue. The Telegraph loved it. So did the Tory Right. Johnson later confessed: “Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power." Johnson’s reports also had an amazing, explosive effect on the rest of Fleet Street. They were much more fun than the usual dry and rather complex Brussels fare. News editors on other papers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match them. By the time I arrived in Brussels editors only wanted stories about faceless Brussels eurocrats imposing absurd rules on Britain, or scheming Europeans ganging up on us, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rearguard actions against a hostile continent. Much of Fleet Street seemed unable to view the EU through any other prism. It was the only narrative it was interested in. Stories that did not bash Brussels, stories that acknowledged the EU’s many achievements, stories that recognised that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments, almost invariably ended up on the spike. Boris Johnson is now campaigning against the cartoon caricature of the EU that he himself created. He is campaigning against a largely fictional EU that bears no relation to reality. That is why he and his fellow Brexiteers could win next week. Johnson may be witty and amusing, just as Donald Rumsfeld was in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but he is extremely dangerous. What began as a bit of a jape could inflict terrible damage on this country.

I was surprised last week that she was in the Leave Camp but she was But here is some even better news Pound and shares soar as Brexit fears ease https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jun/20/pound-shares-markets-eu-referendum-brexit-fears-business-live?page=with:block-5767900de4b0b4b233941b25#block-5767900de4b0b4b233941b25 Sterling is rallying hard this morning - another sign that Brexit worries are easing. The pound has jumped more than two cents, or 1.5%, to $1.4572, after weekend opinion polls showed the Remain campaign picking up more support. That’s its highest level since June 7, before opinion polls showed the Leave campaign in the ascendant.

Some good news for the Remain Camp but a lot more to come Michael Gove as well as a most of the electorate are appalled by Nigel Farage’s recent Breaking Point poster making Sayeeda Warsi quit the Leave campaign saying "Are we prepared to tell lies, to spread hate and xenophobia just to win a campaign?" Economic issues are central to the UK referendum debate. Winners of the Nobel prize in economics believe that the UK would be better off economically inside the EU. British firms and workers need full access to the single market. In addition, Brexit would create major uncertainty about Britain’s alternative future trading arrangements, both with the rest of Europe and with important markets like the USA, Canada and China. And these effects, though one-off, would persist for many years. Thus the economic arguments are clearly in favour of remaining in the EU. George Akerlof Kenneth Arrow Angus Deaton Peter Diamond James Heckman Eric Maskin James Mirrlees Christopher ****arides Robert Solow Jean Tirole Turkey is not going to join the EU in the next thirty years just a lie and scaremongering from the Leave team The UK's car industry, more leading businessmen have backed the campaign to stay in the EU.In a joint statement, the car industry's trade body and company executives warned that leaving would increase costs and threaten jobs. Directors at Toyota UK, Vauxhall, Jaguar Land Rover and BMW, as well as from component makers GKN and Magal Engineering, voiced their support. Rory Harvey, chairman of Vauxhall, said: "We are part of a fully integrated European company where we benefit from the free movement of goods and people. We believe not to be part of the EU would be undesirable for our business and the sector as a whole." Richard Scudamore, executive chairman of the Premier League, pledged his support to remain in the EU, and said the 20 clubs in the top tier also wanted to remain. Diageo's chief executive has written to the company's 4,773 UK employees, telling them that it would be "better for the UK, better for Diageo and better for the Scotch whisky industry that we remain in". Mr Menezes said Diageo benefitted from ease of access to the European single market, as well as trade deals that the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world. "The EU has so far concluded, or is negotiating, over 50 of these global agreements, many of which provide significant commercial benefits for Diageo," Mr Menezes said in his letter. Negotiating new deals after a Brexit could take years, he said. This has led to on the betting sites REMAIN 72% LEAVE 28%

Tom London ‏@TomLondon6 The oldest trick in the book The rich rip off the poor and persuade the poor it is all the fault of immigrants

YouGov's Anthony Wells says they don't think that move to REMAIN is connected with Jo Cox tragic urder as 33% tell YouGov Brexit would make them worse off, up from 23% two weeks ago

History teaches us that hysteria & fear mixed with misinformation are usually to be avoided when making irreversible decisions.

You make an interesting point but for those who have not voted there are a significant number who will change their vote if other Referendums around the world are anything to go by they return to the status quo that is why the odds at the bookmakers dont support out despite the polls apparently but by this time next week we will know and hopefully have a new manager. I agree with your posts about Wanyama he has done well for us and fully deserves a move to CL football

I find this interesting http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-referendum-look-before-you-leap-norways-pm-tells-brexiteers/

I understand you frustration I am sick of hearing about £350m a week because it is a claim repeated endlessly in Vote Leave’s campaign material for our Eu contribution The figure simply comes from taking Britain’s gross annual contribution to the EU’s finances and dividing it by 52. That gross figure was £18.3bn in 2014/15, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which works out at just under £352m a week. But just looking at the gross contribution doesn’t tell the whole story, because we get about half of the money back. About half of this £9bn or so is returned via the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, and the rest comes in the form of payments to Britain from various EU pots like the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development. Although the Washington posts 508 million for the population of the EU it is does not mention the size of the single market which as you say contains us at present The single market also includes Switzerland Norway Iceland and possibly Croatia in the future they have a population of about 19m whilst our population is 65m So without us the single market will have about 460 million consumers quite a sizeable non tariff market

Just one though Wes here are some more The view from the Washington Post: 'Countries usually don’t knowingly commit economic suicide, but in Britain, millions seem ready to give it a try. On June 23, the United Kingdom will vote to decide whether to quit the European Union, the 28-nation economic bloc with a population of 508 million and a gross domestic product of almost $17 trillion. Let’s not be coy: Leaving the E.U. would be an act of national insanity.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/britain-flirts-with-economic-insanity/2016/05/01/bb8d7a4a-0e1f-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html The view from the Financial Times There will be a shock to the economy after BREXIT … but people are underestimating the severity of the shock The view from the Economist Simon Wren Lewis Among everyone and everything I read at the moment there is a mixture of disbelief and despair over the now distinct possibility that the UK will vote for Brexit. Obviously that is partly because I tend to read other economists, and as Chris Giles notes economists are virtually united in believing Brexit will be bad for the economy. (If you cannot access the FT, read Paul Johnson.) But it is also because there is a clear educational divide in support for Brexit, and I suspect most of what I read comes from one side of that divide. The only other event that I can imagine causing an equal degree of unanimous disbelief and despair would be if Trump looked like becoming President. There is disbelief because it makes no sense. Of course there is a minority who hate the idea of sharing sovereignty, and another minority that really hate immigrants. But these two groups combined would not be enough to win a referendum. Instead we have a much larger group that are concerned about immigration, but their concern appears to be not worth very much to them. This was something I noted some time ago, but it seems to be a robust result: in a recent ComRes poll 68% say they would not be happy to lose any income to secure less immigration (perhaps because they believe less immigration will raise their income). It makes no sense because economists are as sure as they ever are that people will on average be worse off with Brexit. But a large section of the population have either not got the memo or have ignored it. This will be an important point when it comes to what happens after Brexit: for many Brexit will have been a vote to control immigration, but only because a lot of those same people think that immigration can be controlled without making them worse off. In other words it will not be a clear mandate for voting against a Norway/Switzerland option, because anything else will make people worse off (as most MPs know). There is despair because economists and others who think Brexit will make people worse off have no way of getting their message across to those that really need that information. I know Gove has said he is fed up with experts, but I’m not convinced most people are (for reasons given here and reiterated here). But writing articles in the Guardian or letters to the Times will not get through to those we need to hear the message (see final chart here). It is why I wrote this. For academic economists I think it is part of a general problem that the media are losing interest in what we think, which is why I wrote this for the Royal Economic Society newsletter. Whether we do or do not leave the EU, I hope one result of this referendum will be that otherwise sensible people will stop saying that our tabloid press is not that much of a problem. It might not be if our broadcast media were brave enough to report facts, but instead it is obsessed with balance, as well as being heavily influenced by what some tabloids say. How else can you account for 58% of people thinking that Turkey is likely to join the EU within ten years, which in reality is close to a zero probability event. Democracy can become dangerous when a few people have so much control over the means of information.

Agree I dont understand why Roy takes five strikers to France yet only starts with one especially against Wales But a good way to finish after the disappointment of a late goal on Saturday Rooney is still a very good player maybe this tournament will confirm it I think he is one of the best players England has produced in the last forty or so years maybe even longer

I hope Jo Cox survives OK but it is not surprising if this sort of thing is allowed to happen http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/farage-poster-enoch-powell-rivers-of-blood-racism-ukip-european-union I can understand peoples concerns for the future with Globalization and Austerity but this sort of thing makes things worse

So your attitude is that it does not matter what is done to the country economically or socially it is OK as you can get them out. But what happens if you cant vote them out surely it is a lot better not have them in the first place.

You dont have to be an MP to be in the Government he can go to the House of Lords Michael Crick ✔ @MichaelLCrick Farage friend says he's been approached by Boris camp about job in Johnson govt & place in Lords to avoid fighting possible Thanet by-elect So you are happy for Boris Farage Gove IDS Patel Grayling to lead the country after BREXIT and it does not worry you If GDP falls on exit - would you want the Govt to borrow, tax or cut spending? If it is tax or cut spending what would you like taxed or what service cut ? GDP has fallen since the referendum started by the way

I agree with you it will never happen but they are trying to send a message that the economy is likely to be smaller after Brexit if GDP does fall and go into recession what would you do put up taxes cut services or borrow. But funnily most of the 57 have been voting for similar measures in Osborne's 8 or 9 Budgets since 2010 By the way how do you feel about a Boris Farage Gove IDS Patel Grayling led Government after BREXIT pretty right wing is that OK with you

We did not join the Euro because it was too risky we should not leave the EU because it is too risky. The Internet was not around in 1990 when we joined the ERM but the only things I remember is that we went in at a too high value and a speculator called Soros made billions like speculators on Brexit will make billions which will probably come from you and me apparently it cost us £12 per person on leaving the ERM in 1992 fully expect it to cost us a lot more to leave the EU. It already has with the pound and FTSE falling

I agree I just think Remain is a lost cause BREXIT is based on fear lies nothing really positive and false statistics generated mostly by the press and the very right wing of the Tory Party although the Remain Tories have piled in with many over the top quotes too I hate to think of the consequences of more unemployment falling living standards and public investment which will eventually be laid on the doors of the EU. I have always hated the Tories because all they are for are the Tory Party and not for the country but they may have gone too far this time I really hope I am wrong

I dont think it anything to do with trust it is the analysis the organisation is putting forward which is key. BREXIT is going to cause the £ to fall Duckhunter says it will raise again which is probably true but to what levels nobody knows In the meantime there is uncertainty as the FTSE drops , investment drops, unemployment goes up GDP goes down ,taxes goes up standard of living goes down. Many on here want reduced immigration that is their choice but that entails having a smaller economy I just cannot see that being wrong. I don’t want a smaller economy I want a bigger economy where every body becomes wealthier and has public services when things go wrong and they become sick and old. Especially as people are living longer these days we need more government money to pay for pensions healthcare and suchlike We currently do have an economy which is growing but the average working person is not seeing much benefit my wife has just had a 1% pay rise after not having a rise for sometime while the top 5% have had massive pay rises this is the fault of the Tory Government not the EU. Not enough houses schools and hospitals have been built so any shortages in this area are blamed on immigration which is needed to fill holes as our economy .grows without them as somebody has already mentioned our economy would be smaller today We need to invest in our country to go forward as the world changes and it seems best to do so in cooperation with other countries and not in competition to see who can pay the least I just feel remaining in the EU is the best approach as opposed to something maybe alright on the night. If the Leave Campaign could put up a fully costed proposal of how much it is going to cost to exit the EU how we would trade what tariffs business would have to pay and a realistic timetable to achieve this we would be in a better situation to chose but we are only given promises not commitments so I am remaining

So why do the IMF Treasury BOE OECD IMF IFS and most economists think you are wrong I do agree there are currency fluctuations but what is being talked about is a run on Sterling wonder how that will affect our transfer dealings with the rest of the world and the cost of going to Euro League games But we see what happens only two weeks to go and then some football interesting post about RK who comes out a bit of a lazy git unlike Poch who went up to Manchester I believe to give support to the youngsters when he was here

I know Farage is not bothered if the pound falls as he is pretty wealthy but what about you if food and oil costs say 15% more would you be happy and would you be happy if this led to inflation and higher interest rates and less disposable income to spend on more expensive imported goods. I would have thought foreign investment for jobs will reduce causing unemployment presently 48% of investment is foreign apparently but the rich with large amount of savings will earn more because of the increased interest rates but not so the poor.

You mean something like this from IPSO MORI The public have a number of significant misperceptions about the EU and how it affects life in the UK, new research by UK in a Changing Europe and Ipsos MORI shows. We get some things right, but we’re more often very wrong on some of the key issues fundamental to the debate – including immigration, Britain’s contribution to the EU budget, the amount of Child Benefit that goes abroad and investment into the UK. Some of the key things we get wrong (and right) are: 1) EU immigrants: we massively overestimate how many EU-born people now live in the UK. On average we think EU citizens make up 15% of the total UK population (which would be around 10.5m people), when in reality it’s 5%1 (around 3.5m people). Those who intend to vote to leave overestimate EU immigration more: they think 20% of the UK population are EU immigrants, compared with the average guess of 10% among those who intend to vote “remain”. 2) Proportion of immigrants who were born in another EU country: but at the same time we underestimate the proportion of all immigrants who were born in the EU. The average person guesses that a quarter (25%) of all immigrants were born in another EU member state, when the reality is 37%2. This suggests that it’s immigration as a whole that we overestimate, rather than EU-specific immigration (as we’ve seen in previous studies). 3) Barmaid cleavages and other regulations from the EU: The EU doesn’t always get credit for some of our laws they’re responsible for – like statutory holiday (37% correctly guessed) and two year guarantees on products (21% correctly guessed). On the other hand, we’re generally pretty good at spotting more ridiculous “Euro-myths”, but still 1 in 7 of us (15%) believe at least one Euro-myth – including bans on barmaids showing too much cleavage and forcibly renaming the snack “Bombay Mix” to “Mumbai Mix” (neither of which are real EU laws3). But EU law is complex– it’s no wonder there’s confusion. A quarter (24%) of us think bananas that are “too bendy” are banned from being imported into the UK. This is a long-standing favourite used as an example of excessive EU bureaucracy - most recently re-surfacing from Boris Johnson4. But is it a Euro-myth? Yes and no: the EU does have a regulation to stop malformed bananas being imported into the UK, but it’s a stretch to say the EU’s banned “bendy” bananas. 4) How much the UK pays in: The majority of us (67%) correctly say the UK annually pays more into the EU’s budget than it gets back - but we overestimate how much we pay compared with other countries. 84% of us put Britain in the top 3 contributors to the EU’s c.€140bn annual budget (the same proportion that picks Germany as a top contributor) and nearly a quarter of us (23%) think the UK is the single top contributor to the EU. In reality, Germany paid in twice as much as us in 2014 (21% of total EU income), followed by France (16%) then Italy (12%), with the UK in fourth place (11%)5. 5) How much the UK directly gets back: the majority of us are also correct that we get less back than other large countries. Three in five correctly (58%) rank the UK as one of the lower gross recipients from the EU budget: in 2014, the UK received less than other Western European countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and France6. 6) Child Benefit: we massively overestimate the proportion of Child Benefit awards given to families in other European countries. The actual proportion of UK Child Benefit awards going on children living abroad in Europe is 0.3%7, but 14% of us think that 30% of UK Child Benefit goes to children abroad and 23% of us think 13% does. This means that nearly 4 in 10 of us think the number of children in EU countries receiving Child Benefit from the UK is 40 to 100 times the actual level. 7) EU democracy: only 6 in 10 know that members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are elected by the citizens of each member state. One in five (18%) think that MEPs are not elected and a quarter (25%) say they don’t know whether they are or not. Who our MEPs are: Unsurprisingly then, just 5% can correctly name at least one of the MEPs representing their region. This is much lower than the number who can name their local MP (41%). 9) The EU’s administration bill: we massively overestimate how much of the EU’s budget is spent on administration. The average guess is that 27% of the overall budget is spent on staff, admin and maintenance costs, when in reality it’s 6%8. If this estimate were accurate the EU would be spending €38.5bn on admin each year, instead of €8.5bn. 10) Inward investment from EU countries: we underestimate how much investment into the UK comes from EU countries. The average guess is that they contribute 30% of total investment into the UK, when it actually makes up almost half (48%). This perception gap is mirrored by an overestimation of investment from China, which people think makes up 19% of inward investment but actually only accounts for 1%9. The Perils of Predictions The survey also asked people to make a series of predictions around the referendum. Despite the fairly even race in the polls and the negative views towards many aspects of the EU seen in this survey, people are twice as likely to predict that we will vote to remain in the EU than to leave: 51% say that Britain will vote to remain and only 23% say we’ll vote to leave. The public are also in line with the bookies on likely turnout levels: on average, we think the turnout will be 60%, when bookies’ odds imply a likely turnout of c63-64%. But our predictions on the impact of a leave vote highlights the main challenge for the Remain campaign. We are pretty certain that leaving will reduce immigration (63% believe that). But while we are nearly as certain that it will also reduce investment from EU countries (57% believe that), only 25% of us think it will reduce our own living standards, with 13% thinking it will increase them and the remainder saying it will make no difference or they don’t know. Bobby Duffy, Managing Director of Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute, said: “The public have been calling for the “facts” to help them make up their minds on how to vote – but this survey shows that many of us are still very shaky on fundamental aspects of our relationship with the EU. This is not surprising, given that the facts on the EU are often complex and contested. In that messy and heated context, these misperceptions are more of an indicator of what’s worrying us than a careful assessment of the evidence – that’s why we’re most wrong on things like immigration, benefit payments going abroad and what the EU spends on bureaucracy. But the survey also points to some key communication challenges and opportunities for the campaigns. In particular, it seems that while the Remain camp may be winning on the macro-economic case, people are not convinced this will have any impact on their own standard of living. So, despite the Remain campaign’s focus on us each being £4,300 worse off if we leave, we’re not making the connection or not believing it. “Project fear” will be much less effective if we think it’s only happening to someone else.” Professor Anand Menon, Director of the UK in a Changing Europe Initiative and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King's College London, said: “There are obviously still high levels of ignorance about the EU, which is troubling so close to the referendum. However, it is not so surprising, given the lack of accurate information provided to the public, as well as the mistruths, exaggerations, and scaremongering that have taken place during this campaign. It’s now more imperative than ever that the public can be provided with as much factual information about the EU as possible before they cast their vote.”

NO ITS NOT all these posters cannot possibly be wrong with their clear and incisive analysis dismissing reasoned and well researched reporting by the world's top economists politicians and business people. by the way I found this ironic 'The EU referendum hasn’t been short of its absurdities, but Vote Leave’s event at the DCS distribution centre in Stratford-on-Avon must be a strong contender for the most surreal. Boris, Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart were all guests of warehouse owner Denys C Shortt, who has declared himself a strong supporter of Vote Leave. Shortt introduced the event by telling his 150 or so employees that he was concerned about high levels of immigration and appeared surprised to be greeted with only lukewarm applause. He shouldn’t have been. Stratford has extremely low levels of unemployment and he struggles to get any Brits to work for him at the wages he is prepared to offer. So many of his staff are Polish immigrants that signs throughout the warehouse are written in both Polish and English. The only sign that wasn’t written in Polish was the one saying “Smile Please”' A common situation in lots of towns in the Southern half of England where unemployment is low many jobs are filled by EU citizens as they are the only ones to apply I know my local post office is run very efficiently by a couple of charming Polish ladies one an ex bank clerk the other an ex air hostess