There are over 65 MILLION people in Britain. That net migration figure gives us a population increase of less than 0.5%
I'm not quite sure what point being made here is. If people are discussing the effects of immigration from FOM within the EU plus controlled immigration from the rest of the world, why does stating "it is less than 0.5% population increase" worthy of a sceptical face? Is 0.5% a low figure or a high figure?
Depends on your point of view, I suppose, and on whether you are part of the population who benefits (cheap staff, able to cut pay and conditions, increased demand for your btl etc) but don't live in areas where they feel the effects of over-stretched resources, or the part of the population who experience the downsides.
I do find it interesting how whether we talk about the effect of policies on the country as a whole or individuals seems to depend on who will be benefitting or having their lives made worse. So sometimes we talk about what's best for the economy, when although this may benefit some, it will not benefit all.
Eg increasing unskilled immigration - benefits for wealthy, problems for less well off, so we talk about "what's best for the economy" even though, as evidenced by the increasing inequality over the last few decades, growth in the economy does not benefit all, in fact possibly the reverse.
Other policies which would be to the detriment (financially anyway, I think we would all benefit in the end from a more equal society) of the most wealthy - higher top rate taxes, attempts to control house prices etc - we just talk about the effects on individuals and then don't put in place the policies which would benefit the country as a whole.