If we vote for Brexit what happens

Arklight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

But lets not forget that there appears to be a disparity between the migration figures and the number of NINo's applied for. The NINo's applied for is consistently higher and the ONS has pointed out that the survey data which they use for estimating the migration numbers has had a 'sizeable gap' between that and the number of NINo's issued to EU nationals since 2006.

Also not forgetting that this only applies to those who actually apply for NINo's, those who work cash in hand may not do so yet still take up accommodation and local resources. I appreciate that it would be difficult to get a figure for people who are effectively 'off the grid'.

I'd probably be what you class as a Brexiteer. Though I don't believe I conform to your stereotypical view.

I agree that the immigration figures are probably inaccurate. They just aren't as inaccurate as Conrad is implying. The electoral roll is about the last thing anyone bothers to register for and if they move a lot then they may miss being registered altogether.

Incidentally this is one of the reasons private renters are falling off the grid politically.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

I agree that the immigration figures are probably inaccurate. They just aren't as inaccurate as Conrad is implying. The electoral roll is about the last thing anyone bothers to register for and if they move a lot then they may miss being registered altogether.

Incidentally this is one of the reasons private renters are falling off the grid politically.

On the contrary I (and many others) suspect that Conrad's estimations may be overly cautious.

Migration Watch suggests the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK may be in the region of 1 million which would kind of agree then with the estimate in the link from the New Statesman, of 430,000 in 2001 rising to 533,000 in 2007.
Such a rise in ten years given the difficulties in calculating numbers does not seem inappropriate.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/02/how-many-illegal-immigrants-are-uk

Now before we start about illegal immigrants not necessarily having any correlation with statistics regarding total immigration, the indications must be that the number of illegal immigrants bear some comparison with the number of legal yet unregistered (or just unrecorded) migrants.

Since the ONS has been quoted in regards to how it collects statistics perhaps this should be noted:

ONS international migration statistics
7. This is the measure most commonly used to estimate the numbers of migrants to and from the UK. The first estimates are produced in the last quarter of the subsequent year and more detailed information is produced in the following Spring.

8. The main source is the International Passenger Survey (IPS) - a voluntary sample survey of passengers travelling via the principal airports, sea routes and the Channel Tunnel. Not all ports of entry are covered. The survey asks questions about the intended length of stay of travellers to and from the UK on which the first estimates of international migration are based. The survey has a number of limitations:

a) It excludes land routes between Ireland and the UK. Ireland is part of a common travel area with the UK and there is no survey of people crossing the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. b) It excludes most asylum seekers and their dependants. c) The survey asks about peoples intentions which may not accord with what they do in practice. d) As a sample survey it only includes a very small sample of migrants so there is a great degree of uncertainty. All the information on inflows for the 2004 statistics were based upon 2801 interviews (standard error 3.8%) and for the outflow, on just 755 interviews (standard error 4.7%). That means that the grossed-up estimate of inflow has a 95% chance of being somewhere between 478,600 and 557, 600, and the outflow between 281,500 and 339,300. At the extreme, that means that net inflow could be between 139,000 and 276,000.

The estimates for Pakistan, quite an important source country, were based upon 231 interviews of immigrants and 6 interviews of emigrants. The estimate of a net 3,000 inflow from the Caribbean was based on the difference between 28 interviews in and 6 interviews out.

Apart from the uncertainty, all this means that the data can only be analysed and tabulated by very gross aggregated categories of (for example) country of origin and citizenship, purpose of visit, and age. Among other things it is not easy to separate those who enter for family re-unification, and those who enter in order to marry. e) It is voluntary. About 17% of those approached decline to participate f) At present it does not cover the airports used by budget airlines, nor coach travellers. This makes it particularly inaccurate in respect of East Europeans

Room there for some pretty major miscalculations, no?
And then we wonder why (as Trickytree points out above) far more applications for NINo's are made than numbers of immigrants - not (as said) even counting those who work in the so-called "shadow economy" which (in total) it is estimated costs the UK around 10% of GDP.*

As I say in an earlier post, " Do not take this to read that I am anti-migrant, because I am not.
I do however believe that migration should be targeted towards areas designated as being "in need" and not a "free-for-all" system."

I too err on the side of being a Brexiter although (as the poster before said) I suspect I do not fit your stereotypical view of what one is.

Also note that I am still not angry, I am not misinterpreting the data and - perhaps most importantly - I will not tolerate an abusive tone which some persist in using with me when they cannot debate any other way.

* Link for 10% GDP figure: https://www.lovemoney.com/news/57013/cash-in-hand-tax-evasion-morals-right-wrong

Conrad

Arklight wrote: »

If its a choice between making wild unfounded assumptions based on anecdote and hearsay, or using evidence I would rather go with the evidence.

.

Classic, exactly as expected. Arrogantly dismissing real world experiences.


People know whether there's been a significant influx into their area or not.

Herzlos

http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sketches-out-interim-uk-trade-deal-that-hits-services-hard/

Leaked/mentioned trade deal would include tariff free trade on goods in both directions, some UK car exports may fail origin checks as not containing enough British made components, and we can't just act as a gateway to tariff free access to Europe. Services not mentioned as part of the agreement, beyond wanting UK airlines and banks to have significant EU presence in order to operate.

Conrad

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

But lets not forget that there appears to be a disparity between the migration figures and the number of NINo's applied for.

Back in the early 2000's when people were getting disgruntled about the levels of new arrivals, the likes of Barbara Roach were defending Labour and dismissing concerns as unfounded anecdote and rumour. Once again street level lived experience was far more revealing than dry stats.


As a general rule I find 'progressives' do tend towards being a bit remote and out of touch. There's a lack of common sense.

Arklight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

On the contrary I (and many others) suspect that Conrad's estimations may be overly cautious.

Migration Watch suggests the number of illegal immigrants currently in the UK may be in the region of 1 million which would kind of agree then with the estimate in the link from the New Statesman, of 430,000 in 2001 rising to 533,000 in 2007.
Such a rise in ten years given the difficulties in calculating numbers does not seem inappropriate.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/02/how-many-illegal-immigrants-are-uk

Now before we start about illegal immigrants not necessarily having any correlation with statistics regarding total immigration, the indications must be that the number of illegal immigrants bear some comparison with the number of legal yet unregistered (or just unrecorded) migrants.

Since the ONS has been quoted in regards to how it collects statistics perhaps this should be noted:
Room there for some pretty major miscalculations, no?
And then we wonder why (as Trickytree points out above) far more applications for NINo's are made than numbers of immigrants - not (as said) even counting those who work in the so-called "shadow economy" which (in total) it is estimated costs the UK around 10% of GDP.*

As I say in an earlier post, " Do not take this to read that I am anti-migrant, because I am not.
I do however believe that migration should be targeted towards areas designated as being "in need" and not a "free-for-all" system."

I too err on the side of being a Brexiter although (as the poster before said) I suspect I do not fit your stereotypical view of what one is.

Also note that I am still not angry, I am not misinterpreting the data and - perhaps most importantly - I will not tolerate an abusive tone which some persist in using with me when they cannot debate any other way.

* Link for 10% GDP figure: https://www.lovemoney.com/news/57013/cash-in-hand-tax-evasion-morals-right-wrong

Might be worth remembering that EU immigrants by definition, aren't illegal at the moment.

If anything Brexit is just going to create more illegal immigrants, rather than less.

wotsthat

It must be like a sixth sense being able to spot flawed methodology and know which way the miscalculation has been made using nothing but intuition, 30 seconds on google and a bold font.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Once again street level lived experience was far more revealing than dry stats.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. You've no way to tell if your street level experience is representative.

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

Classic, exactly as expected. Arrogantly dismissing real world experiences.


People know whether there's been a significant influx into their area or not.

What are you suggesting, a one in one out rule post Brexit? Maybe we could fill up all the S's first - one in Slough, one in Sunderland, one in Sheffield.

People go where the jobs are. Brexit will do nothing to stop illegal immigration and legal migrants will still head to London and the South East, like everyone else in the UK.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. You've no way to tell if your street level experience is representative.

Yes I tend to ignore the old Trawler man with a lifetimes experience at sea - his intuitions and experience as to what fish are where is merely anecdote, his experiences an irrelevance.


You're right none of us can tell a thing from our day to day lived experiences of the area we call home.


Give me a chart