EU referendum: British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The British public have it wrong on immigrants and wrong on the EU. According to their research by Ipsos MORI, British people think far more EU citizens live in the UK than actually do, that we pay far more money to the EU budget than is the case, and that we significantly overestimate the amount of benefits paid to EU migrants. In a survey of 1,000 people, weighted to represent the nation’s demographic profile in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and other factors, respondents claimed that, on average, 15 per cent of the UK population are EU immigrants. That would be 10.5m people. The correct figure is 3.5m. Those who intend to vote Leave in the referendum put the figure at 20 per cent. ‘Remainers’ put the figure at 10 per cent. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html"]Source[/URL]

Well Shirebook is full of Poles and Sutton is full of Eastern Europeans. In fact the Sports Direct HQ is near me, their main shop is just jam packed full of Eastern Europeans, but the CEO of Sports Direct owns nearly all the houses in Shirebrook which he rents to the Eastern Europeans, they get paid a minimum wage, however he charges them just under their pay so they can't afford to leave.

if the source is true, its not surprising. both sides appear to have no actual clue what their side will do

Well when both sides of the argument are run by a notorious liar and a scare-mongering nob, it's no wonder a lot of people have been given false facts and half truths.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;50497747]Well when both sides of the argument are run by a notorious liar and a scare-mongering nob, it's no wonder a lot of people have been given false facts and half truths.[/QUOTE] Better to stick with what we have and not leap into this darkness that is hailed as light by Boris, Trump and Farage.

What a surprise, i've been saying this for months

The stuff that my house has been getting through the letterbox has so much bias, lies, obscured truths and complete fabrications. I really hope people wise up to some of this bollocks, my hopes aren't high.

One of my housemates got a Leave campaign flyer through the post the other day (personalised with his details at that). Apparently they went down the "save your family!!!" route. He lives with three other randoms in a shared housing thing, pretty sure he's not got a family that we've ever seen or heard of. I'm not entirely sure how effective that point is when you don't have a family :v:

It's not surprising, it's not really an issue with a solution, but the public knowing fuck all about the economics of what they're voting on and the media basically actively not educating them on the economics or even social implications of their vote really fucking sucks.

What is it with 2016 votes and feeling like you're having to pick the lesser of two evils? I feel as if the puppetmaster of world events has decided that binary decisions aren't very good.

The public keep complaining that no one will give them decent answers and the campaigns both respond with their twisted stats rather than anyone trying to explain it, although I don't know how many people would listen to a full explanation I.e. if we vote in these are the possible results (because nothing is certain, so really you have to present the scenarios), and similarly we need to have the same for leave, and the public need to decide on what terms we stay or leave, I.e. are we willing to accept the regulations or free movement for trade access if it comes to it?

It's pretty telling, though, that even Remain voters seem to overestimate the cost.

As an Englishman, I can confirm I am wrong about literally everything 99% of the time.

The whole "well we don't know what'll happen if we leave/stay" thing is really dumb to me. Like sure nobody could give you a definite answer with specific numbers and stuff, but there are tons of economic explainations to the benefits and costs of being in or not being in a trade bloc. We could talk about social issues all day, and I'd happen to disagree with a lot of nationalism and isolationism, but there's a lot more to the discussion than "we has too many Muslims" and "we're being controlled by unelected government of the United States of Europe".

A thousand people is not a reasonable sample size of the UK. They didn't even bother to say where they collected this information. This survey is largely meaningless.

this is making it about economics though the real question is sovereignty.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;50498683]A thousand people is not a reasonable sample size of the UK. They didn't even bother to say where they collected this information. This survey is largely meaningless.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]weighted to represent the nation’s demographic profile in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and other factors[/QUOTE] [I]Literally[/I] only separated by a comma from the figure you quoted. And at 95% confidence the margin of error is 4%, assuming they did their stuff right. Do yourself a favour and actually research a bit before you post a bunch of bullshit.

[QUOTE=Rowtree;50498578]As an Englishman, I can confirm I am wrong about literally everything 99% of the time.[/QUOTE] Since you're wrong about 99% of everything, what if you were wrong about yourself being English?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50498703][I]Literally[/I] only separated by a comma from the figure you quoted. And at 95% confidence the margin of error is 4%, assuming they did their stuff right. Do yourself a favour and actually research a bit before you post a bunch of bullshit.[/QUOTE] Weighted how precisely, by what precisely? This article says very little about how they negotiated these statistics. There is a reason why actually useful statistical reports provide all this information up-front. As it stands, this article just tells you to take it on good faith. A huge waste of space.

Personally, I'm not voting on the grounds that I don't know shit about politics or economics, and have no real way of learning in time in a way free from bias and false information. I don't want my idiocy to affect other people.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;50498716]Weighted how precisely, by what precisely? This article says very little about how they negotiated these statistics. There is a reason why actually useful statistical reports provide all this information up-front. As it stands, this article just tells you to take it on good faith. A huge waste of space.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Fieldwork was conducted 29th April to 5th May 2016 and 27th to 30th May 2016. • In total, 1,000 interviews were conducted using i:Omnibus – Ipsos MORI’s online panel. For the additional wave of fieldwork, a total of 1,083 interviews were conducted. All questions include all respondents unless stated otherwise (all adults aged 18-75). • The results have been weighted to reflect the known profile of the adult population in Great Britain. They are weighted on age, gender, social grade, region and work status. • Averages where specified refer to the median value (that is the response from the respondent in the middle of a ranked distribution) • As the data includes some outliers, the median value was chosen over the mean as a representative of the centre of the data. Median values, unlike the mean, are unaffected by outlying measurements. • Ipsos MORI has worked with Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, to establish the correct versions of the actual data and facts used. [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx"]Source[/URL]

[QUOTE=Worstcase;50498716]Weighted how precisely, by what precisely? This article says very little about how they negotiated these statistics. There is a reason why actually useful statistical reports provide all this information up-front. As it stands, this article just tells you to take it on good faith. A huge waste of space.[/QUOTE] From the horse's mouth: [QUOTE]Technical note: • Fieldwork was conducted 29th April to 5th May 2016 and 27th to 30th May 2016. • In total, 1,000 interviews were conducted using i:Omnibus – Ipsos MORI’s online panel. For the additional wave of fieldwork, a total of 1,083 interviews were conducted. All questions include all respondents unless stated otherwise (all adults aged 18-75). • The results have been weighted to reflect the known profile of the adult population in Great Britain. They are weighted on age, gender, social grade, region and work status. • Averages where specified refer to the median value (that is the response from the respondent in the middle of a ranked distribution) • As the data includes some outliers, the median value was chosen over the mean as a representative of the centre of the data. Median values, unlike the mean, are unaffected by outlying measurements. • Ipsos MORI has worked with Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact checking charity, to establish the correct versions of the actual data and facts used. [/QUOTE] [url]https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx[/url] If you actually cared you'd have looked it up yourself. I can see it being a problem that it's an, it would appear, "already existing group", but if they controlled properly for the factors listed, I don't see this being "largely meaningless" as you suggested. On top of that you said that a thousand people wasn't a reasonable sample size, which is just flat out wrong. [editline]11th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;50498763][URL="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3742/The-Perils-of-Perception-and-the-EU.aspx"]Source[/URL][/QUOTE] Why do I always spend five minutes rewriting my posts.

im voting stay. if you think im going to pay for a visa when it's only 1hr to france, you must be mad.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;50498696]this is making it about economics though the real question is sovereignty.[/QUOTE] The entire sovereignity argument has been bullshit from day one The assertion that the EU is undemocratic and basically the "EUSSR" amongst other shit I've seen is so out of whack with reality I struggle to believe sometimes people can even invent these things. There is a clause in the EU constitution, and you can go check it, under article 1-26 where parliament can force the entire commission to resign if it fails to carry out its duties. That alone destroys the argument that they're unaccountable, that parliament has no power and that the Commissioners are ruling tyrants. The commission itself is chosen by elected officials - the MEP's. Another common saying is along the lines of "EU parliament is the only parliament in the world that can't pass or block law bla bla bla " It can't suggest laws and pass them, but the notion that they can't block law is a total lie. If the Commission cannot get parliament to approve its bill after 3 readings that's it, there's no more bill. But lets for sake of argument that you do think the EU is democratic and you want that extra 1% of less constraints (at the huge cost of influence in Europe but nevertheless) and pride that you're "more in control" or whatever. Why is it the EU that is the point of controversy? The UK is the spoilt child of the EU, with more major exceptions than any other country in it, and that's because the EU doesn't have the authority to force us into Schengen, or force us to accept the Euro, or force us to commit to closer union. Why not leave NATO, which demands we spend more of our GDP on the military, puts us under obligations to fight wars we have no interest in, and effectively makes us another American vassal? Why is it that we're not talking about replacing Trident, which is literally an extension of the American nuclear weapons programme, funded by us, and with American missiles only usable with American authorisation, but inside of a British Submarine? We don't need a Submarine re-do program that costs a 1/6 to a 1/3 as much money as we have in the annual budget to spend. Though I personally think NATO is for the best, Trident is idiotic - in the event of a nuclear war, we get one Submarine available to help collectively piss over the ruined wasteland of a planet that's left while one is stuck in repairs and the other 2 get nuked in port. If we have to wank about the fact we have nuclear capability, why don't we just buy some Cold War era American bombers?. Doing some quick google searches, for the same cost of one Trident Submarine we could buy a squadron of B1 Lancers. The way forward in the modern world is cooperation, not isolation and clinging to nostalgia of being a self-sustaining country in a bygone era.

I haven't got any leave eu material through my door just stay leaflets which is odd.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50498836]The entire sovereignity argument has been bullshit from day one The assertion that the EU is undemocratic and basically the "EUSSR" amongst other shit I've seen is so out of whack with reality I struggle to believe sometimes people can even invent these things. There is a clause in the EU constitution, and you can go check it, under article 1-26 where parliament can force the entire commission to resign if it fails to carry out its duties. That alone destroys the argument that they're unaccountable, that parliament has no power and that the Commissioners are ruling tyrants. The commission itself is chosen by elected officials - the MEP's. Another common saying is along the lines of "EU parliament is the only parliament in the world that can't pass or block law bla bla bla " It can't suggest laws and pass them, but the notion that they can't block law is a total lie. If the Commission cannot get parliament to approve its bill after 3 readings that's it, there's no more bill. But lets for sake of argument that you do think the EU is democratic and you want that extra 1% of less constraints (at the huge cost of influence in Europe but nevertheless) and pride that you're "more in control" or whatever. Why is it the EU that is the point of controversy? The UK is the spoilt child of the EU, with more major exceptions than any other country in it, and that's because the EU doesn't have the authority to force us into Schengen, or force us to accept the Euro, or force us to commit to closer union. Why not leave NATO, which demands we spend more of our GDP on the military, puts us under obligations to fight wars we have no interest in, and effectively makes us another American vassal? Why is it that we're not talking about replacing Trident, which is literally an extension of the American nuclear weapons programme, funded by us, and with American missiles only usable with American authorisation, but inside of a British Submarine? We don't need a Submarine re-do program that costs a 1/6 to a 1/3 as much money as we have in the annual budget to spend. Though I personally think NATO is for the best, Trident is idiotic - in the event of a nuclear war, we get one Submarine available to help collectively piss over the ruined wasteland of a planet that's left while one is stuck in repairs and the other 2 get nuked in port. If we have to wank about the fact we have nuclear capability, why don't we just buy some Cold War era American bombers?. Doing some quick google searches, for the same cost of one Trident Submarine we could buy a squadron of B1 Lancers. The way forward in the modern world is cooperation, not isolation and clinging to nostalgia of being a self-sustaining country in a bygone era.[/QUOTE] America helped with Trident, they use many of the same systems and as such they would be needed for a pin-point accurate strike, we wouldn't launch unless the world was going down the pan anyway as a launch in co-operation with the US (Because you know, we are allies and shit.) is always going to be how it goes. We don't know exactly what and where the nuclear armed submarines are so to say two are in dock mostly is very nieve, they would obviously be in dry-dock to re-fuel or re-fit but that's just how being a submarine goes, they need to be maintained to be safe and effective. A submarine operating is much more viable and capable than a squadron of B1s or nuclear silos. Silos can easily be targeted to retaliate or even attacked pre-emptively whilst an old and outdated B1s are just a stupid idea.

Pfft. Well, [i]I[/i] could have told you that. I mean, have you seen their taste in video games?

The only politician with a view I fully agree with is Dennis Skinner. Too bad it's a road that would lead to years of pain. We need more politicians like Dennis Skinner.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50498836]The entire sovereignity argument has been bullshit from day one The assertion that the EU is undemocratic and basically the "EUSSR" amongst other shit I've seen is so out of whack with reality I struggle to believe sometimes people can even invent these things. There is a clause in the EU constitution, and you can go check it, under article 1-26 where parliament can force the entire commission to resign if it fails to carry out its duties. That alone destroys the argument that they're unaccountable, that parliament has no power and that the Commissioners are ruling tyrants. The commission itself is chosen by elected officials - the MEP's. Another common saying is along the lines of "EU parliament is the only parliament in the world that can't pass or block law bla bla bla " It can't suggest laws and pass them, but the notion that they can't block law is a total lie. If the Commission cannot get parliament to approve its bill after 3 readings that's it, there's no more bill. But lets for sake of argument that you do think the EU is democratic and you want that extra 1% of less constraints (at the huge cost of influence in Europe but nevertheless) and pride that you're "more in control" or whatever. Why is it the EU that is the point of controversy? The UK is the spoilt child of the EU, with more major exceptions than any other country in it, and that's because the EU doesn't have the authority to force us into Schengen, or force us to accept the Euro, or force us to commit to closer union. Why not leave NATO, which demands we spend more of our GDP on the military, puts us under obligations to fight wars we have no interest in, and effectively makes us another American vassal? Why is it that we're not talking about replacing Trident, which is literally an extension of the American nuclear weapons programme, funded by us, and with American missiles only usable with American authorisation, but inside of a British Submarine? We don't need a Submarine re-do program that costs a 1/6 to a 1/3 as much money as we have in the annual budget to spend. Though I personally think NATO is for the best, Trident is idiotic - in the event of a nuclear war, we get one Submarine available to help collectively piss over the ruined wasteland of a planet that's left while one is stuck in repairs and the other 2 get nuked in port. If we have to wank about the fact we have nuclear capability, why don't we just buy some Cold War era American bombers?. Doing some quick google searches, for the same cost of one Trident Submarine we could buy a squadron of B1 Lancers. The way forward in the modern world is cooperation, not isolation and clinging to nostalgia of being a self-sustaining country in a bygone era.[/QUOTE] do people actually still believe the EU parliament does anything. listing its theoretical powers doesn't change the reality that it is a rubber stamp that noone cares about. As for the rest of your point about relative sovereignty, I wrote about this here: [url]https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/the-european-union-and-sovereignty/[/url]

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50498326]The public keep complaining that no one will give them decent answers and the campaigns both respond with their twisted stats rather than anyone trying to explain it, although I don't know how many people would listen to a full explanation I.e. if we vote in these are the possible results (because nothing is certain, so really you have to present the scenarios), and similarly we need to have the same for leave, and the public need to decide on what terms we stay or leave, I.e. are we willing to accept the regulations or free movement for trade access if it comes to it?[/QUOTE] The problem is that there are so many things that could happen, things that your average bod probably wouldn't understand. There's so much to think about when it comes to a decision like this that it seems silly putting it to public vote because even those that actually do research instead of blindly following a leader, will still have trouble weighing up everything. Coming from Scotland the only true fact I'm aware of is that the EU shits on our fishermen. I'm for remain but our fishermen really do need a better deal if we stay.