Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[jjlynn27]

FiF said:

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that the work by Dustman and Frattini has been comprehensively trashed by several objective studies on the grounds that they have made several completely unreasonable assumptions. Especially their claims concerning recent EEA migrants.

Migration watch general conclusions were:-

a. On Dustmann and Frattini’s own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year.

b. Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either.

c. The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed
migrants contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK.

d. Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people. Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population,
and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes
O
e. In fact, on less unreasonable assumptions, there was no positive fiscal impact at all from the recent EEA migrant group singled out by Dustmann and Frattini for their very positive contribution.

f. Migration to the UK continues to have a significant fiscal cost, and recent migrants in fact made no difference to the upward trend.

Migrationwatch is objective?

[don'tbesilly]

jjlynn27 said:

FiF said:

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that the work by Dustman and Frattini has been comprehensively trashed by several objective studies on the grounds that they have made several completely unreasonable assumptions. Especially their claims concerning recent EEA migrants.

Migration watch general conclusions were:-

a. On Dustmann and Frattini’s own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year.

b. Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either.

c. The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed
migrants contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK.

d. Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people. Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population,
and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes
O
e. In fact, on less unreasonable assumptions, there was no positive fiscal impact at all from the recent EEA migrant group singled out by Dustmann and Frattini for their very positive contribution.

f. Migration to the UK continues to have a significant fiscal cost, and recent migrants in fact made no difference to the upward trend.

Migrationwatch is objective?

The inference being that it's not?

Please explain the inference.

[jjlynn27]

don'tbesilly said:

The inference being that it's not?

Please explain the inference.

Nothing to explain.

You made bs comment about my statement. I provided chart that shows that you are wrong. As usual, you jump onto the next straw. Not interested in playing that game.

[Sway]

jjlynn27 said:

Sway said:

Plus, in order to support the theory that zero control of European immigration creates the biggest possible benefit for the UK, a distribution curve of volumes vs net contribution would need to be shown...

On the other points - a significant amount of non-EU applications are not controlled by us, but we're forced to accept them based upon ECJ (note, not ECHR) rulings.

Volumes - one is directly measured, one isn't. Not a valid comparison.

And so on.

What theory?

Even staunchly pro-Brexit anti-immigration 'migrationwatch' is in agreement that EU immigration is more beneficial than non-EU immigration.

It's a statement of fact based on empirical evidence.

What is the 'significant amount'? Numbers with links please.

OT: Do you still think that you could slash NHS budget by '30-50%' and improve service? Could be quite useful at the moment.

You presented two assertions - one, that European migration is of greater benefit to the nation than non-European. Two, that we have no control over European migration but we do non-European.

The inference is therefore that not having control of European migration has lead to a greater benefit than controlling the immigration we currently do. This is the theory that I stated in my post.

I didn't challenge that European migration was of greater benefit. What I challenged was whether the benefit we receive is the greatest we could achieve. In order to prove that Freedom of Movement, as currently applied, is the best option the simplest and most statistically sound method would be to plot a histogram showing the distribution of volumes of European migrants versus the net benefit resulting from them.

If done so, I have zero doubt we would see a similar curve to that of income tax. Whereby the vast majority are not net contributors, yet the overall population shows net positive figures due to a small population that massively shift the curve into overall positive.

If we plot that histogram, and overlaid the financial contribution criteria we apply to non-European migrants, then we could calculate pretty accurately the two net contribution figures - the higher one is the one that gives the most benefit to the nation, and is the option we should adopt.

When I find time I'll dig out the data regarding worldwide migrants that were granted residency whilst failing the financial requirements. This is primarily due to the interpretation by the ECJ of the application of the 'right to family life' which was taken to effectively mean 'if you have a relative here, then you should be allowed to live in the same nation'. Those numbers are significant, as can be seen in pretty much every curry house in the nation.

As for your cross thread remarks about the NHS - I never said I could achieve it. I freely admitted that whilst that's my professional field (which I'm pretty well regarded in), better guys than me have tried and failed - not because they're wrong (the NHS themselves don't disagree with Professor John Seddon's analysis regarding over 70% of A&E demand, and therefore cost is driven by failure demand, they just disagree that it's solvable), but because turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and NHS managers don't vote for significant change.

Incidentally, Seddon has had significant success working for the private health care sector, and is currently working in NZ doing very similar work with greater results.

So yes, I do state (with references in the appropriate thread that no-one was able to refute) that there are huge opportunities to massively cut costs while improving service and outcomes. Indeed, the entire manufacturing sector found this shortly after WW2, as the Japanese built an industry from scratch that outcompeted the established players for decades. Many other industries are also enjoying similar wholesale changes in the economics and service levels of their businesses - whilst many are shaking their heads saying 'it's just not possible'...

[don'tbesilly]

jjlynn27 said:

don'tbesilly said:

The inference being that it's not?

Please explain the inference.

Nothing to explain.

You made bs comment about my statement. I provided chart that shows that you are wrong. As usual, you jump onto the next straw. Not interested in playing that game.

I didn't make a BS comment about your statement.

I stated that the Government didn't know the statistics, so it comes as a surprise that an organisation knows the statistics that the govt doesn't.

You infer that Migration Watch is not objective, I question your inference and you start throwing toys around.

If you don't want to play, stay in your pen

[Elysium]

don'tbesilly said:

You infer that Migration Watch is not objective, I question your inference and you start throwing toys around.

It's not objective though is it?

It's clear from their website that they are campaign group with a predetermined position on the subject.

They do state that they aim to be factual in their analysis, but you can't be objective if you already have an opinion.

[jjlynn27]

Sway said:

You presented two assertions - one, that European migration is of greater benefit to the nation than non-European. Two, that we have no control over European migration but we do non-European.

The inference is therefore that not having control of European migration has lead to a greater benefit than controlling the immigration we currently do. This is the theory that I stated in my post.


I didn't challenge that European migration was of greater benefit. What I challenged was whether the benefit we receive is the greatest we could achieve. In order to prove that Freedom of Movement, as currently applied, is the best option the simplest and most statistically sound method would be to plot a histogram showing the distribution of volumes of European migrants versus the net benefit resulting from them.

Your inference. My point; The immigration from EU has significantly better impact on UK economy than non-EU immigration.


Would you have to cross reference that with benefits achieved from participation in single market? Impact of immigration, from the data that I've seen is less than 1% of GDP. Impact of being inside EU is significantly higher.

Sway said:

If done so, I have zero doubt we would see a similar curve to that of income tax. Whereby the vast majority are not net contributors, yet the overall population shows net positive figures due to a small population that massively shift the curve into overall positive.

If we plot that histogram, and overlaid the financial contribution criteria we apply to non-European migrants, then we could calculate pretty accurately the two net contribution figures - the higher one is the one that gives the most benefit to the nation, and is the option we should adopt.

When I find time I'll dig out the data regarding worldwide migrants that were granted residency whilst failing the financial requirements. This is primarily due to the interpretation by the ECJ of the application of the 'right to family life' which was taken to effectively mean 'if you have a relative here, then you should be allowed to live in the same nation'. Those numbers are significant, as can be seen in pretty much every curry house in the nation.

Every curry house? You dig those numbers, and then we'll talk.

Sway said:

As for your cross thread remarks about the NHS - I never said I could achieve it. I freely admitted that whilst that's my professional field (which I'm pretty well regarded in), better guys than me have tried and failed - not because they're wrong (the NHS themselves don't disagree with Professor John Seddon's analysis regarding over 70% of A&E demand, and therefore cost is driven by failure demand, they just disagree that it's solvable), but because turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and NHS managers don't vote for significant change.

Incidentally, Seddon has had significant success working for the private health care sector, and is currently working in NZ doing very similar work with greater results.

So yes, I do state (with references in the appropriate thread that no-one was able to refute) that there are huge opportunities to massively cut costs while improving service and outcomes. Indeed, the entire manufacturing sector found this shortly after WW2, as the Japanese built an industry from scratch that outcompeted the established players for decades. Many other industries are also enjoying similar wholesale changes in the economics and service levels of their businesses - whilst many are shaking their heads saying 'it's just not possible'...

Show me where Seddon or anyone else has achieved '30-50%' reduction in costs while improving 'quality of care'.

Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 22 July 18:54

[FiF]

Elysium said:

don'tbesilly said:

You infer that Migration Watch is not objective, I question your inference and you start throwing toys around.

It's not objective though is it?

It's clear from their website that they are campaign group with a predetermined position on the subject.

They do state that they aim to be factual in their analysis, but you can't be objective if you already have an opinion.

Yes you can, it's difficult but you have to be prepared to accept findings which don't support a previous position. Classic case was Lomburg who set out to prove one thing and ended up proving the exact opposite. At least he didn't then do, as some do, including some on here, just assume the findings must be wrong and ignore them.

They might have a previous opinion, but they're a damn sight more objective than Dustmann and Frattini were.

Speaking of which not a single poster has refuted the objections raised, simply doing another version of ignoring the content but simply playing an equivalent of the 'oh it's the Mail/Express" game.

Then people wonder why so many walk away from the thread.

Out.

[Elysium]

FiF said:

Yes you can, it's difficult but you have to be prepared to accept findings which don't support a previous position. Classic case was Lomburg who set out to prove one thing and ended up proving the exact opposite. At least he didn't then do, as some do, including some on here, just assume the findings must be wrong and ignore them.

They might have a previous opinion, but they're a damn sight more objective than Dustmann and Frattini were.

Speaking of which not a single poster has refuted the objections raised, simply doing another version of ignoring the content but simply playing an equivalent of the 'oh it's the Mail/Express" game.

Then people wonder why so many walk away from the thread.

Out.

I certainly can't refute the points you made. Immigration is not an area that has ever really concerned me and I have not looked closely at the facts around the economic benefit or cost of migrants.

One thing that does occur to me is that, assuming this analysis is correct, only 40% of our households make a net contribution to society. More strikingly the top 1% of households shoulder 30% of the total tax bill:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

Genuine philosophical question - is it right to expect migrants to make a net contribution when most of our native population do not?

[sidicks]

Elysium said:

I certainly can't refute the points you made. Immigration is not an area that has ever really concerned me and I have not looked closely at the facts around the economic benefit or cost of migrants.

One thing that does occur to me is that, assuming this analysis is correct, only 40% of our households make a net contribution to society. More strikingly the top 1% of households shoulder 30% of the total tax bill:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

Genuine philosophical question - is it right to expect migrants to make a net contribution when most of our native population do not?

Why else would we want to have immigration if it is a net cost to society?

Edited by sidicks on Friday 22 July 19:38

[Sway]

JJ, without going mental with quotes:

1) It doesn't matter whether European or non-European migrants are more beneficial - this debate is about whether FoM is the best option, and whether the impact of FoM mitigates or supports the benefits of Free Market access. As such, the analysis I proposed (if done using good data) would enable us to answer that once and for all.

If we did apply the same criteria, the relative numbers of successful applications would show the relative benefit of each nation's migrants. Why you'd be bothered about knowing that I can't figure out.

2) As said, when I get a chance I will provide the data available. However please don't wilfully represent my comments - 'pretty much every' is significantly different in context to 'every'. One is absolute, the other clearly infers a known margin of error. In this case as the data patently isn't available in determining place of work as well as criteria used to support granting residency.

3) We can take this to the appropriate thread if you wish, but understandably most companies don't share publicly the results from the sort of projects Seddon and I do. Aviva have this: https://next.ft.com/content/5b22525a-74e3-11e0-a4b...

Swap initial call answered quickly but rushed to a GP appointment. 60% failure demand (it's actually higher) for A&E visits. Misprinted letters for misdiagnosis/treatment, and iller patient. Targets is a direct comparison with a reported and achieved target and a significantly longer actual patient lead time. 20k fewer calls per month in a single call centre? Improved NPS score? They're the two benefits I've claimed and you've asked for.

[Elysium]

sidicks said:

Elysium said:

I certainly can't refute the points you made. Immigration is not an area that has ever really concerned me and I have not looked closely at the facts around the economic benefit or cost of migrants.

One thing that does occur to me is that, assuming this analysis is correct, only 40% of our households make a net contribution to society. More strikingly the top 1% of households shoulder 30% of the total tax bill:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

[b]Genuine philosophical question - is it right to expect migrants to make a net contribution when most of our native population do not?[/b

Why else would we want to have immigration if it is a net cost to society?

I see the point, but 60% of our existing population are a net cost to society - do we not want them either?

In a capitalist society with good levels of social mobility some of those 60% might become net contributors, but the majority will not. That doesn't mean that we don't need them. The jobs that many of them do are indispensable to our society. There is no point in having an income of £500k per year if there are no nurses and no-one to empty your bins.

[FiF]

sidicks said:

Elysium said:

I certainly can't refute the points you made. Immigration is not an area that has ever really concerned me and I have not looked closely at the facts around the economic benefit or cost of migrants.

One thing that does occur to me is that, assuming this analysis is correct, only 40% of our households make a net contribution to society. More strikingly the top 1% of households shoulder 30% of the total tax bill:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

[b]Genuine philosophical question - is it right to expect migrants to make a net contribution when most of our native population do not?[/b

Why else would we want to have immigration if it is a net cost to society?

The problem is that there are tangible and intangible costs and benefits. These studies only look at tangible parts if the equation, eg tax, social payments. Even then there are many ways of looking at it, and as migration watch themselves point out, there is no one study that can be pointed out as the definitively correct answer. That's for the bit which involves concrete numbers.

Now try to deal with the intangible issues, the benefits to society of the work that the migrants do, the costs to society, eg health, housing, transport. For example one study of housing and commuting in the South East showed that migrants were increasingly living in areas further out from centre of London than hitherto, raising the question of future commuting and transport capacity. Things like this are virtually impossible to dial into the equation imo, and again whatever result you come out with will depend upon fifteen nested assumptions. Which is what happens, and despite any caveats and health warnings about figures, people take whichever headline message suits their purpose, which is basically what happened today on this thread.

[///ajd]

Stickyfinger said:

Your Crap'O'meter is getting full

please post a single entry on the forum about cars to reset

OK, my 911 will blow the doors off your Healey every day of the week!

Better?






(this is only a joke, I don't really think an old 911 is any better or worse than an AH3000)

Edited by ///ajd on Friday 22 July 19:59

[///ajd]

Sway said:

///ajd said:

hidetheelephants said:

jjlynn27 said:

hidetheelephants said:

What part of the EEA's FOM being conditional and subject to unilateral controls do you not understand? Is it that complicated?

It would be simpler if you explain more. If it's North's Licht option it was discussed before. As I understand, 'Norway' option doesn't include controls. Happy to be corrected.

It's not an option, it's in the EEA rules, specifically article 112 and 113;

EEA agreement said:

If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.

Not a sinecure as (re)joining the EEA requires the consent of the members and there will be horse trading needed to get that. North does venture the idea that as we are are technically still in the EEA we don't need to join but he doesn't put much store in it.

Art 112 and 113 won't apply just because "you don't like foreigners". Any cheeky application would be stamped on by the EU - and North should realise that. He does actually, so its not helpful to given false hope to those not smart enough to see it.

Licht option - with a pop of 35k - will hardly apply to the UK. Otherwise Switzerland would be doing it already - and they can't.

Such flawed dreams - dream on!

Do I really, for at least the fourth time, point out with evidence that this post is complete bks? Really?

First of all, why are you mentioning Switzerland in points about EEA? They are not a member.

Secondly, and many on this thread will remember - you refuted my experience living and working in Zurich, including the fact that my residency visa was initially refused. "They've signed up to the four freedoms", you cried repeatedly.

Until it was demonstrated, using Swiss government documentation that they do put significant restrictions on movement and labour for any period over 90 days.

Each time, you go from assertion to assertion, to being shown clear irrefutable evidence, to going quiet for a week or two then spouting the same bks.

At least four times so far - do we need a fifth in a couple of weeks?

If the swiss have such good immigration control over the EU, why are they about to fall foul of the freedom of movement obligations?

You are deliberately misrepresenting the swiss option and you know it.

I am at a bit of a loss to know why you are doing it.

The ability we had to deport EU nationals who did not have a job after 6 months seemed reasonably similar to what Switzerland has. Why do you crow so much about it being somehow massively different?

Do you want to stop all the fruit pickers coming to the UK to help UK farmers? Don't you care about their livelihood?

Edited by ///ajd on Friday 22 July 19:58

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

If the swiss have such good immigration control over the EU, why are they about to fall foul of the freedom of movement obligations?

You are deliberately misrepresenting the swiss option and you know it.

What is your (alleged) knowledge of the Swiss option based on?

[jjlynn27]

Sway said:

JJ, without going mental with quotes:

Understand.

Sway said:

1) It doesn't matter whether European or non-European migrants are more beneficial - this debate is about whether FoM is the best option, and whether the impact of FoM mitigates or supports the benefits of Free Market access. As such, the analysis I proposed (if done using good data) would enable us to answer that once and for all.

If we did apply the same criteria, the relative numbers of successful applications would show the relative benefit of each nation's migrants. Why you'd be bothered about knowing that I can't figure out.

It absolutely does matter. Hence my four points. I'm looking forward to your analysis as much as to choosing which set of figures are you going to use as a starting point.

Sway said:

2) As said, when I get a chance I will provide the data available. However please don't wilfully represent my comments - 'pretty much every' is significantly different in context to 'every'. One is absolute, the other clearly infers a known margin of error. In this case as the data patently isn't available in determining place of work as well as criteria used to support granting residency.

It wasn't wilfully at all. My bold would be on 'curry house' rather than 'every' or 'pretty much every' (I didn't think you meant 'every'). Apologies anyway.

Sway said:

3) We can take this to the appropriate thread if you wish, but understandably most companies don't share publicly the results from the sort of projects Seddon and I do. Aviva have this: https://next.ft.com/content/5b22525a-74e3-11e0-a4b...

Swap initial call answered quickly but rushed to a GP appointment. 60% failure demand (it's actually higher) for A&E visits. Misprinted letters for misdiagnosis/treatment, and iller patient. Targets is a direct comparison with a reported and achieved target and a significantly longer actual patient lead time. 20k fewer calls per month in a single call centre? Improved NPS score? They're the two benefits I've claimed and you've asked for.

Sorry, no go. The link to Seddon pdf was journal of anecdotes. Swapping call volumes with what? It's a call centre. What is the relevance to NHS? I asked this; show me where anyone, anywhere in the world has achieved '30-50%' savings in any health system, with improving quality of care, and I'll, very gladly say that I was wrong.

Yes, happy to continue this on another thread.

[Stickyfinger]

///ajd said:

OK, my 911 will blow the doors off your Healey every day of the week!

Better?






(this is only a joke, I don't really think an old 911 is any better or worse than an AH3000)

Edited by ///ajd on Friday 22 July 19:59

and I don't think you own a 911.....

[///ajd]

sidicks said:

///ajd said:

If the swiss have such good immigration control over the EU, why are they about to fall foul of the freedom of movement obligations?

You are deliberately misrepresenting the swiss option and you know it.

What is your (alleged) knowledge of the Swiss option based on?

Reading various articles about it.

Heres a recent one from Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/...

I actually think brexit might help switzerland in the long run if brexit forces a rethink on migration. That's an if though. But it might.

[Elysium]

///ajd said:

OK, my 911 will blow the doors off your Healey every day of the week!

Better?

It wont help. I posted about Hillman Imps in this very thread.