UK Govt delays EU immigration report because it's too positive

Scofflaw

It appears the UK government commissioned a report on the effects of EU immigration, in order to back up Cameron's shape throwing on the subject. Unfortunately, it turned out that the report didn't back his poisiotn:

A review into the impact of EU migration on Britain has been delayed because the Government feared it was too positive.

The latest part of Whitehall’s Balance of Competences study, which looked specifically at freedom of movement, had been due to be released yesterday.

But, according to reports, it has now been shelved until next year because Theresa May, the Home Secretary, takes issues with its findings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-delays-eu-immigration-report-because-it-is-too-positive-8994264.html

Some might take issue with the very idea of commissioning a study in order to back a particular political position, while some might find it entertaining that a positive report has been shelved, given the constant cries of "let's have an honest debate about immigration". The outcome of the report shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given that a previous report also found that EU immigration to the UK was positive overall, with EU immigrants contributing £60bn to the UK economy between here and 2050 (corrected courtesy of GCU!).

cordially,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

The outcome of the report shouldn't be too much of a surprise, given that a previous report also found that EU immigration to the UK was positive overall, with EU immigrants contributing £60bn a year to the UK economy.

I'm just looking at the summary of that report (as they seem to want an email to download the full version.)

Just to get a pedantic point out of the way, it actually says

Curbing EU immigration could cost UK £60 billion in lost GDP by 2050

I don't see where they say that's an annual, rather than a cumulative, loss.

However, the statement in that summary that requires scrutiny is really this one

According to the report migrant workers are more likely to be in work (63.3 per cent) than UK-born citizens (56.2 per cent) and more economically active – 69.8 per cent of non-UK EU immigrants compared to 63 per cent of UK-born citizens.

Why would we be comparing "migrant workers" to "UK-born citizens"? Now, maybe its just loose wording, and the two cohorts are equivalent. It's just a point that needs expansion.

Also, it seems strange to refer to a cohort as "migrant workers" when more than a third of them seem to be out of work. I suspect (but I don't know, as I'm not giving them my email) that what they are actually doing is conflating two or more groups together under the heading of "migrant workers". So, for the sake of argument, a French MBA with a job in the City of London is being lumped in with an unemployed immigrant, and the researchers are happy to report the average of their incomes is above the UK norm.

And I suspect (but don't know) that the Tory position is they'd like to see a lump of research that distinguishes between the French MBA, who would probably want to work in the City of London anyway, and the third of "migrant workers" who don't seem to work.

But, clearly, I don't know the detail of either study. I'm just suggesting an alternative view is possible.

Scofflaw

GCU wrote:

Also, it seems strange to refer to a cohort as "migrant workers" when more than a third of them seem to be out of work. I suspect (but I don't know, as I'm not giving them my email) that what they are actually doing is conflating two or more groups together under the heading of "migrant workers". So, for the sake of argument, a French MBA with a job in the City of London is being lumped in with an unemployed immigrant, and the researchers are happy to report the average of their incomes is above the UK norm.

I would imagine that that's exactly what they're doing, since the political posturing Cameron (and UKIP) is doing also treat those two as equivalent.

The more rational - and national - measures Cameron is proposing would distinguish between them, but there is no issue with those measures under the Freedom of Movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw