David Davis: Lords report demolishes Labour's economic case for mass immigration

A cross-party House of Lords committee, chaired by Lord Wakeham and including Lords Lawson and Lamont, has rejected the Government's economic case for migration this morning.  The Government's argument that immigration produces £6bn of economic benefits a year  is dismissed as "preposterous". The report wins coverage across this morning's newspapers and is leading broadcast bulletins.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis welcomed the report - particularly its backing for a limit on immigration from outside the EU (a long standing policy of his):

“This cross-party committee of distinguished peers, including a Professor of Labour Economics and former Chancellors, have demolished the Government’s case on several fronts.  They show unequivocally that the benefits of the current immigration policy to ordinary UK citizens are largely non-existent. There are a series of long-term risks to the economy, not least the disincentive to train, and it presents absolutely no answer to the pension crisis.  We are delighted they say there should be an explicit target range for immigration through controls on non-EU applicants. This is a policy that we have been arguing for, for years and which the Government has consistently rejected.”

Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch also welcomed the report, seeing it as vindication for his organisation's work:

"This report is a watershed.  A heavyweight committee of Parliament has torn to shreds the government's economic case for the massive levels of immigration which they have actively encouraged.  Having lost their smoke screen of dodgy economic arguments, they now have no alternative but to implement a sharp reduction in numbers.  The public will accept nothing less."

Comments

[Iain]

The report can only be welcomed, that its about 5 years late, and that its taken the 'unrepresentative' Lords to do it while our so called representatives in the Commons have shown themselves to be a waste of space is yet anther feather in the cap of the Lords and so its understandable why the Commons wants to abolish them.

Its also noticeable that here we have another issue where just as Cameron and the 'ubers' have marginalised the Conservatives party on the issue, making the argument that they don't want to be 'nasty', yet their silence and failing to speak up has denied many people an opposition voice who are suffering the effects of mass immigration, so one could say the ‘ubers’ silence on this issue has been ‘nasty’ to many people of this country.

[anthony scholefield]

It makes the connservative manifesto for the last general election-'we have all benefited from immigration'-look an insult to the British people.
Still there is a clear policy on chocolate oranges.

[Mark Fulford]

It is for pressure groups, not political parties, to be opinion leaders.

[Peter Harrison]

Anthony and Iain have clearly not been listening to Cameron. He has NOT been silent on immigration. In August last year he said that immigration was too high and needed to be controlled. In October he said that immigration should be substantially lower. Both sets of comments received substantial coverage.

If he emphasised this issue all the time, it would appear that we are obsessed with immigration which would put voters off. It would also lay us open to a charge of lacking policies in other areas. We have to have a balanced policy agenda covering all areas. As it is, we are able to point out that, unlike our opponents, we have been arguing for limits on immigration for years.

[Letters From A Tory]

Cameron and Davis need to resist the temptation to go in all guns blazing on this one. Headlines like this are excellent news for the Conservative agenda, but the government's failed immigration policy is hardly breaking news! Having said that, it does turn the screw a little bit tighter.

[Michael McGowan]

"It is for pressure groups, not political parties, to be opinion leaders." An approach which served this country so well in the 1930's! In any case, political parties are at least in part pressure groups, so I don't follow this one.

[Dave C]

Cameron and his weak appeasing mates have by ignoring the majority of the British public let the country down.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Anthony and Iain have clearly not been listening to Cameron. He has NOT been silent on immigration. In August last year he said that immigration was too high and needed to be controlled. In October he said that immigration should be substantially lower. Both sets of comments received substantial coverage".

Well that was last October. Last month he changed his mind and fellow shadow cabinet minister Liam Fox (ardent Eurosceptic) announced he wanted the Turkey with its 70,000000 millions to join the EU and have the opportunity to emmigrate to Britain.

The sound of gunfire as Captain Mannering hyphen Cameron shoots off another of his toes assisted be Liam (Pike) Fox.

[Conservative Homer]

Just watching Sky news and my jaw is still on the floor in disbelieve. The proponent from the IAS (didnt get his name, some lardass) FOR immigration actually said, live on TV, responding to Sir Andrew Green, that immigration creates as many job requirements as it fills.
Yes, a man whose job is to encourage and justify unbridled immigration, admits, on TV, the only substantive (none of this ambiguous multicultural BS) objective argument for immigration is a actually a complete fallacy, and that any attempts to ease staff shortages are in fact a zero sum game.

OK, the wafer thin arguments the Immigration lobby have used may have been taken apart by most of us years ago, but hopefully the hoodwinked public will be able to see the glaringly obvious now.

[michael mcgough]

Clearly we would be BETTER OFF OUT of the EU then we could control ALL immigration FAIRLY.

[Jack Stone]

Personally I totally disagree with restricting those from outside the EU coming here when they are coming here to work. Some of our best doctors and nurses are immigrants from outside the EU and to restrict them coming here will deprive the NHS of some highly skilled, extremely hardworking people.

[Jack Stone]

Two other points. To suggest that all seventy million Turks are going to want to come to this country when and it is when not if Turkey join the EU is laughable and secondly I wondered how long it would take someone to bring the EU into this subject.
On this site if you discuss the weather you would get some idiot post something that mentioned the EU.

[Iain]

"Clearly we would be BETTER OFF OUT of the EU then we could control ALL immigration FAIRLY."

Yes I am getting fed up of hearing politicians say they can't do anything about the migration from the EU, for yes they can, they can un-sign what they have signed us up to with the EU. Unfortunately what we have is a political class who feel they are more obligated to the EU, than any obligation to the people they are supposed to represent.

[Patrick Ratnaraja]

In the last two years the highest numbers of immigrants to Britain are from Europe. The secon highest are those who were given highly skilled immigrant visas by the Government.

It is wrong for the Conservative party to say that we should put a cap on immigrants from non EU Countries. Thousands of immigrants from Europe who have come here for a better life than to contribute to Britain.

It is time for the Government and the Conservatives to put a Cap on immigration from Europe and also this so called Highly skilled migrant Visas rather than saying cap on non EU Countries.

Does non EU mean Americans and Canadians? Are you going to stop the Americans coming here?

Immigarnts from non EU Countries are from Countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the African Countries.

Are we trying to say that we don't want coloured People in Britain?

Ofcourse we are.

[Chad Noble]

"Immigarnts from non EU Countries are from Countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the African Countries.

Are we trying to say that we don't want coloured People in Britain?"

Exactly Patrick. Immigration to the UK should be based on need, blind to a person's place of birth.

And I'm sorry Jack, but it is just a simple statement of fact that we would need to be out of the EU to end this discrimination.

[Iain]

"Well that was last October. Last month he changed his mind and fellow shadow cabinet minister Liam Fox (ardent Eurosceptic) announced he wanted the Turkey with its 70,000000 millions to join the EU and have the opportunity to emmigrate to Britain."

As our politicians are not going to do anything about limiting the obligations they have signed us up to with the EU, we must make damned sure they don't add anymore countries to the EU , like Turkey.

[Jack Stone]

We have to manage our immigration policy properly from within the EU.
Leaving the EU is not an option and no sensible politican I know proposes it.

[Sean Fear]

"Immigarnts from non EU Countries are from Countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the African Countries."

And it is immigrants from those parts of the World that are least likely to be coming here to work, and most likely to entering as spouses, family reunions, and asylum seekers.

So, it's entirely rational for us to want to curb immigration from those countries.

[Dave C]

'In the last two years the highest numbers of immigrants to Britain are from Europe' Patrick Ratnaraja

Wrong. The Office of National Statistics showed last month that two thirds of immigrants in the UK are from non- EU countries

[Rod Sellers]

At last ! An authorative report this week that explodes the NuLabour myth that mass immigration is good for Britain. After scrutinising all the costs and benefits, an all party House of Lords Select committee has found that that inward migration has brought zero economic benefit. This means that despite all the problems caused by 200,000 new arrivals each year - strain on local services, migrants getting most of the new jobs, many young Brits becoming a workshy underclass, growth of crime, return of diseases like TB - there has been no net gain for the country.

The House of Lords is doing a better job than our featherbedded MP's and it should now turn its scrutiny on another great NuLabour myth.Our membership of the EU (and the cause of 80% of our immigration) is set to cost us £16.3 billion over the next 3 years. We pay in more than most of the other member countries and get back less than any of the other 26. France gets back nearly double per head than Britain - no wonder Sarkozy wants more co-operation !

For ten years this government has peddled the untested claim that Immigration and closer integration with the EU are essential to our economy. Now that these claims are being fully costed - it is clear that the reverse is true. Both are bleeding the Taxpayer dry.

[David Bodden]

Now that a committee of peers has backed up what many people like me have been saying for years will anyone listen to the rest of what we have been saying: specifically that some of us have been severely damaged by this policy? As I have written many times, my livelihood was destroyed by the flooding of the market place by cheap, migrant staff on fraudulent work permits. It lead to my bankruptcy, homelessness and suicide attempts. Many others have died because of the actions of nuLieBore. There is no help available to get anyone back into work or even provide access to the necessary medical help that I and many others desperately need.

The Conservative Party has been aware of the damage done; every MP must have had hundreds of desperate people pleading for help. Will the Conservatives now make efforts to bring the government to account and to force them to provide help for those poor people that have suffered at this evil policy? Exactly, not a chance. They are as bad as the nuLieBore regime.

[Iain]

"We have to manage our immigration policy properly from within the EU.
Leaving the EU is not an option and no sensible politican I know proposes it."

Which is impossible as we are getting non Eu immigrants gaining citizenship in another EU country, essentially transiting these countries to come here.

There was a report the other day about Somali people moving here from other EU countries.

[Jack Stone]

Immigration as bought to this country many highly skilled, hard working people who have never claimed social security, never been in trouble with the police and worked hard to provide for themselves and there family`s.
We should be proud to have them and as far as I am concerned we could do with more people like them.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I hope that we will press the government very very hard on this.What this report proves is that most of their defence of their immigration policies have been complete garbage at best or as I suspect lies.
However more important is what the Conservative Party is planning to do about it. Taking so many immigrants from the EU or anywhere else in the world as we have in recent years is simply not sustainable. Restrictions which may be draconian must be imposed.

[anthony.scholefield]

First of all the Conservative party has to recognize it has advocated and gone along with policies of mass immigration and apologize for this.
Some intellectual rigour would be welcome-what do all these researchers and |Mps do when we have to wait for a decent report from the unpaid House of Lords.
Second the idea of Turkey joining the EU must be resisted.
Third as has been pointed out it is possible and indeed happens and is being advocated by Franco Frattini that the EU should have a policy of circular migration where an immigrant goes to any EU country and then moves onto the UK for obvious reasons i.e slack social security regulations, desire for children to learn English etc.
Fourth it is essential to leave the EU and stop the nonsense of free movement of people-this is i n economic terms a nonsense since a lot of british citizens lose through this by lower wages and paying for the social and capital costs of immigrants

[Bill]

It is almost incredible that there are still some who remain uncritical of the last ten years immigration "policy".

[I Albion]

To little to late, and all the politician's who have let this happen to our country for fear of being called racists ,should suffer greatly,but of course they won't, only the fools who voted for them.

[Iain]

"I hope that we will press the government very very hard on this"

Don't get your hopes up for the BBC is already tipexing the Lords report out of existence, for the World at one on R4 made no comment about it, the topics they covered were Zimbabwe, US elections and Iraq, the fact that a justification for a policy area had been completely rubbished, Labour's economic claim for mass immigration, was totally ignored.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Brown rejects a cap on immigration today. He maintains (the fiction?)that immigration is worth six billion annually to the economy and also claims that 80% of immigrants come from the EU.

[Robert Wilson]

"Immigarnts from non EU Countries are from Countries like Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the African Countries."

And it is immigrants from those parts of the World that are least likely to be coming here to work, and most likely to entering as spouses, family reunions, and asylum seekers.

So, it's entirely rational for us to want to curb immigration from those countries.

Posted by: Sean Fear | April 01, 2008 at 14:01

I agree with that Sean. But suggesting such curbing from such countries will leave an opening for those on the Left (and Jack Stone) to shout "Racist" it is just the colour of their skin.

Nope. Apart from the fact we are an overcrowded island and the arguments put forward by the HoL Committee, there is, I am afraid, another overlooked elephant in the room: it is the one of culture and religion. Many parts of the world show that different cultures and religions do not mix leading to strife and a "torn, cleft country". Each to his own and good luck.

[Dave C]

The information below confirms that the non EU immigration in 2006 was 70%. The figure quoted by Brown today of 20% applies to work related immigration (22% as shown at the bottom of this information) and is yet another example of Brown mispeaking about government statistics.

Letter dated 25 February 2008:

To
Abigail Armstrong
Statistics Commission
HM Treasury
Room G / 071
Horse Guards Road
LondonSW1A 2HQ

Dear Abigail,

You requested my comments on the points raised by Andrew Green in his letter to the Statistics Commission dated 17 December.....

To answer, Andrew Green’s specific questions at the end of his letter, I would
answer:

• the proportion of inflows to the UK from outside the EU in 2006, based on IPS data, is around 60% including British arrivals and around 70% excluding British arrivals; and
• the proportion of non-EU immigration, in 2006, that was work related was 22%.

David Blunt
Chief Statistician &
Head of Profession for Statistics
Home Office

[Yet Another Anon]

Migrant workers coming into the UK are frequently much more hardworking than many UK workers, they are prepared to work harder for less mostly and in this country most pay tax and NI contributions and don't claim benefits.

Many jobs being done up and down the country are only being done because there are immigrants there to do them, because British workers aren't prepared to do them or don't have the skills.

Waiters, cooks, taxi drivers, bus drivers, plumbers - lots of jobs that otherwise would not be filled or would be filled by chavs with no committment or understanding.

In a free market people have to compete for jobs, competition improves quality.

The answer is to scrap most Employment legislation such as the Minimum Wage, there needs also to be a switch in focus on immigration to screening out those considered to have possible links to terrorist organisations or criminal gangs. Anyone breaking the law needs to be booted out of the country following their sentence irrespective of what happens to them when deported.

The capping policy is flawed because any system with a cap would naturally have to have a target to help avoid the numbers reaching the cap, because the chances are that if numbers reached the cap then they would exceed them. The Conservative cap policy at the last election had not had much thinking done on it, what would happen if asylum seekers arrived and the cap had been reached? The answer given by Michael Howard was that they would be carried over into next years figures - meaning probably more of a problem next year - government perhaps having to announce numbers exceeding the limit each year, there was general agreement among parties wanting zero immigration, no net immigration, and immigration limited to skilled migrants and asylum seekers and family of people in this country.

In addition border controls should be tightened, the authorities should be far more sure that anyone from inside the UK or abroad who is considered a criminal, terrorist or to have links with such is detained and not released until it has been established that they are not a danger to the general population.

Benefits need to be restricted to being strictly for those granted asylum who are resident in the UK and UK citizens. Migrant workers should only get benefits they have paid contributions towards. The NHS and Education system need to switch to a more commercial system in which services are charged for and there is a system of low interest means tested loans available with residency requirements.

Welfare provision of those seeking asylum and those in prison should be limited to getting low interest loans and prisoners should be charged for the costs of their imprisonment, questioning and punishment unless they are shown to be innocent.

But targeting the main group of hardworking immigrants is pointless and mostly just a substitute for actual action on many issues.

Indeed even if GDP per Capita is not overall increased much by immigration as is suggested, the overall GDP increased does mean that some functions such as R&D, Defence and money for the running of political institutions is coming out of a larger pot making it easier to fund.

Mass Transit systems such as Trams, Railways , Buses are far more cost effective in areas with concentrated populations.

Of course to be able to apply the same restrictions to migrants from EU countries as to those from other countries; to abolish Human Rights Requirements stopping the incarceraion, execution and/or deportation of those who have served sentences or are believed to be in league with criminals and terrorists - there is a simple solution to this which is to leave the EU, leave the European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice and then pass new legislation bringing changes in the Justice, Migration and Nationality Laws into effect.

[Sean Fear]

"Migrant workers coming into the UK are frequently much more hardworking than many UK workers, they are prepared to work harder for less mostly and in this country most pay tax and NI contributions and don't claim benefits."

There are certainly communities of which that is true. There are also immigrant communities whose rates of economic activity fall well below that of the native British population.

People who are lawfully resident here become eligible for most social security benefits after 12 months, and for some, that's preferable to working.

[Dave C]

Many of the comments have disappeared. Was the truth too controversial and had to be edited out or is it a technical hitch?

[David Bodden]

@ Yet Another Anon | April 02, 2008 at 01:01

Why do you and most others think that only chavs are being displaced by migrant workers? I am proof that it happens to the professional classes too. The IT profession has been particularly hard hit by the use of work-permit staff. Good jobs (and people) are being destroyed along with the tax revenue as their replacements are only paid an allowance for being in the UK the balance of their salary is paid abroad and not liable to UK tax.

How can there be a shortage of staff if those being disposed of are training their overseas replacements? Any IT recruiter will tell you that for every post on Jobserve will generate hundreds if not thousands of replies. However, most jobs are not advertised in the UK and are filled directly or via the ‘inter-company transfer’ scam. It is a big fraud and the nuLieBore government is up to its neck in it. What is more, the Conservatives will not oppose it which begs the question: ‘Why?’

Turning to the wider jobs market: scrapping the national minimum wage and allowing a near infinite level of immigration that we have now would mean that wages would very quickly approach zero. They would certainly fall by 50% immediately the NMW was scraped and would be 50 pence an hour within three months. Yes, they would still come. Those of us that have worked abroad know how much free health care and education for the children is worth.

If the British people are so lazy and useless that we have to replace them with imported staff then cutting benefits isn’t going to help things as it would mean that budgets for health and police would have to rise to cope. Persisting with the myth of the unemployed being unemployable will only make it true as employers will never consider an application from an unemployed person.

Getting people back to work requires constraints on the supply of alternatives so employers have to hire what is available and train them if they don’t have the ever growing list of skills demanded. Furthermore, those that are unemployed should be able to challenge the issuance of work-permits including those already issued. It should be up to the employer to show that the challenger could never do the job no matter how much training they got. If they fail to do so the challenger should get the job and those on the work permit deported immediately. All future permits should really only be issued for someone to train a British person.

[Yet Another Anon]

Furthermore, those that are unemployed should be able to challenge the issuance of work-permits including those already issued. It should be up to the employer to show that the challenger could never do the job no matter how much training they got.
You are presuming that people seeking employment should have the right to know details of others also seeking that job, it is not an employers responsibility to provide such details, or tell anyone seeking a job, on what basis they chose someone else, or indeed respond at all to those seeking the job - this is something that is up to the employer whether public or private.

Such provisions would add massive bureaucratic burdens on business and the state at substantial cost.

[Yet Another Anon]

Yes, they would still come. Those of us that have worked abroad know how much free health care and education for the children is worth.
The answer to that is simple, as I proposed, scrap free healthcare and education and have low interest means tested loans, these could be restricted not to apply to the children of immigrants who had not entered on an asylum basis and/or been granted citizenship and where they didn't have work they should not be entitled to non-contributory benefits .

[passing leftie]

I'd guess none of you have actually read the report, and you've conveniently ignored the Low Pay Commission's report released pretty much at the same time saying that immigrants are bring a per capita benefit to natives. They said that immigration had a "broadly neutral" economic effect, so don't take it as ammunition for your xenophobic fantasies.

I notice that many of you would be happy leaving the EU, breaking up the Union and closing the doors behind you, hold up with the Daily Mail and Daily Express, and festering into decline.

Immigration is one of the things which has made this country great; small-minded intolerance from Little Englanders is what stops it being as great as it could be.

[Yet Another Anon]

The EU actually is a pretty xenophobic organisation, many in Italy, Poland and other Roman Catholic countries appeared to be attempting to get a change pretty much making the Pope into a sort of religious leader of the EU as if the Reformation had never happened.

Then of course there are attitudes to Turkey, many countries simply rejecting it because most of it falls outside what is a geopolitical definition of Europe (given that Europe geographically is not really seperate from Asia, sharing a huge land barrier - its very much an artificial designation) and because most of the population is Muslim.

After years of demanding unity for Cyprus, the Greek part votes against union and gets to join the EU and the Turkish part votes for and despite this being what the EU asked of them in order to join the EU (which they wanted), they ended up essentially still being blamed.

Leaving the EU can be justified for a wide range of reasons and if anything more members of Labour and Labour MPs want the UK to leave the EU than Conservatives do - the EU may well decide to restrict immigration into the EU in their own way, of course they will still expect member states to have freedom of movement within the EU.

The UK should have the right to exclude from it whoever it so chooses without reference to any external body - arguments about who is not to be permitted to enter is another matter.

There is the creation by the EU of external security policies, attempts to subvert NATO - the EU is only one international body, the UK is a member of a number of international bodies such as The Commonwealth, Universal Postal Union, NATO, World Meteorological Organisation, ESA, UN - what about the Little Europeans who talk as if Europe is the Universe.

The arrogance of Jacques Chirac as posing as some kind of guarantor of international law given France's history of blatant self interest in intervening in other countries especially in North Africa and conducting nuclear tests in the South Pacific right up into Chirac's time in office and being the main supplier of weaponry and technology to terrorist regimes across the world.

The hypocrisy of Chirac in attempting to railroad EU countries into opposing the War in Iraq on basis of law when France had been the main supplier to the regime providing it into the 1980s with nuclear technology. France now has rather better leadership than then.

Then of course there are the failed subsidy schemes and the writing of liberal ideology into the constitution preventing states taking effective action against crime and terrorism.

[Michael McGowan]

Question: aren't passing leftie and Jack Stone the same person?

[Bill]

Michael

"Little Englander" "xenophobic" etc: the labels are so predictable, even "ennuyant".

[Jack Stone]

It left-wing to believe racism is wrong and that we should treat immigrants and would be immigrants with respect.
What total rubbish!

[David Bodden]

You are presuming that people seeking employment should have the right to know details of others also seeking that job, it is not an employers responsibility to provide such details, or tell anyone seeking a job, on what basis they chose someone else, or indeed respond at all to those seeking the job - this is something that is up to the employer whether public or private.

Such provisions would add massive bureaucratic burdens on business and the state at substantial cost. YAA

Yes, the burden on an employer of migrant labour would be huge, that is the point. The penalties of discriminating against native candidates can be avoided very easily by employing British people in the first place. The costs can easily covered by appropriate fees for permits, say, £50,000 per annum.

[passing leftie]

Michael

"Little Englander" "xenophobic" etc: the labels are so predictable, even "ennuyant".

Posted by: Bill | April 02, 2008 at 16:48

What is tedious is not my accurate labels for the behaviour, but the predictability of the behaviour itself.

Question: aren't passing leftie and Jack Stone the same person?

Posted by: Michael McGowan | April 02, 2008 at 16:40

No, I am not Jack Stone, but I'm not surprised that you think anyone who says anything vaguely positive about immigration must be left wing.

[passing leftie]

close italics

[snegchui]

Two points. Only England, Sweden and Ireland permitted free-flow movement of foreign EU-nationals from day one. My understanding is that the other nations, such as France and Germany, perhaps more attractive destinations to Poles, will have to do so soon. People will go where they can, and in this case it is England and Ireland, Sweden not so popular perhaps on linguistic grounds. So the bulk of movement has come here.
Watching QT last night, it bugged me that David Alexander kept on harping about £6bn boost to the economy and everybody shut up and conceded it. What does this mean??? to me it means 600,000 people came and (GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) the economy grew by £6bn, £10,000 a person. On the grounds that I think people consume accommodation, travel, council tax, and in food, (£150 pw, £7800 pa) I fail to see what is so great about this figure at all. And if the new people are using schools and NHS (which increases consumption) then the productivity hike just vanishes. If someone could enlighten me, I would be very grateful.
I will take on board that the Scots are very worried about the McLeodskis, many of whom may have fled Scotland to Poland in the times of the Clearances, not staying put on their long-delayed return, as some businesses there now have a labour force that is more than 50% EU foreign national.

[snegchui]

Two points. Only England, Sweden and Ireland permitted free-flow movement of foreign EU-nationals from day one. My understanding is that the other nations, such as France and Germany, perhaps more attractive destinations to Poles, will have to do so soon. People will go where they can, and in this case it is England and Ireland, Sweden not so popular perhaps on linguistic grounds. So the bulk of movement has come here.
Watching QT last night, it bugged me that David Alexander kept on harping about £6bn boost to the economy and everybody shut up and conceded it. What does this mean??? to me it means 600,000 people came and (GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports) the economy grew by £6bn, £10,000 a person. On the grounds that I think people consume accommodation, travel, council tax, and in food, (£150 pw, £7800 pa) I fail to see what is so great about this figure at all. And if the new people are using schools and NHS (which increases consumption) then the productivity hike just vanishes. If someone could enlighten me, I would be very grateful.
I will take on board that the Scots are very worried about the McLeodskis, many of whom may have fled Scotland to Poland in the times of the Clearances, not staying put on their long-delayed return, as some businesses there now have a labour force that is more than 50% EU foreign national.