The soundbite being used is thus:
"the big point is that without the immigrants, our taxes or public sector borrowing would be measurably higher. Which, at a time when the government is failing to reduce the UK's unsustainable large public sector deficit at the speed it would like, seems of some relevance."
Robert Peston, BBC
Why is this so partial? Well the study is on a specific time period that ended 3 years ago for a start. In effect, it is measuring not quite the first 6 years on labour increase. Migration Watch have countered that if you use the information that is up to date, all of their conclusions change - the overall net cost if much higher and there is no net benefit.
Worse though is that EU immigrants are of course only half the of the issue. Non EU immigrants in this time period are 40% of the total. These immigrants are ignored, but their employment levels are lower and they have more dependents - so its is inevitable that they will cost more. Plus the more EU immigrants there are, the less chance other immigrants will have of getting the jobs generated by the economy.
This single fact is enough to discredit the report entirely. using only half the pool for analysis and then selecting specific time periods to fit your own narrative is very shoddy work. It's helpful anti-UKIP conclusion suits many of a certain view to jump on; but really, what is the point of such partial analysis?
