With Europe’s migration crisis escalating everywhere from Calais to the Mediterranean refugee flotillas, many are claiming that exiting Europe will solve these and other migration “problems”. This is one of the biggest political mis-selling scandals of our time.

“Outers” have started to make some very ambitious claims about the wonderful sunny uplands of life outside the European Union – sans foreigner and in particular sans EU migrants. They say that there will be an end to dastardly migration to all those Ukip-rich voting areas once we leave behind the plot to flood this country with foreign workers who undercut British citizens.

Yet their arguments are often contradictory. Whether you listen to Business for Britain or Douglas Carswell or Nigel Farage, none of their claims that “controlled borders” would mean less migration are in any way credible.

The campaign group Business for Britain, run by TaxPayers’ Alliance founder Matthew Elliott, has placed its vision on the record: it proposes taking away the social chapter, which gives protection to low-paid workers, and only allowing EU migrants to come to the UK for “skilled” jobs. In effect, this would mean that British workers would be sent to the fields or dreary factories, while EU migrants could access skilled work. How good that will look on a leaflet in Rotherham is not a question Business for Britain seems to have considered. Why is its vision for the future not focused on turbo-charging opportunities for those low-skilled Brits who are trapped in low-paid, insecure jobs?

Concerns about immigration mustn’t be brushed under the carpet – politicians should take them seriously

Carswell’s Singapore of Europe model, by contrast, doesn’t try to put an end to free movement at all. In Carswell’s post-Brexit Britain, employers will be under pressure to reduce employment rights. A new focus on trade with the rest of the world will require loosening visa restrictions in order to secure inward investment and bilateral trade deals. With already half of our migration coming from beyond Europe, it is unclear how well this vision would reduce actual numbers. And we shouldn’t forget that migrants coming from the rest of the world are more likely to seek permanent residency, eventually getting old in the UK, with all the attendant health costs.

Farage’s Brexit “retail offer” is the model that would place the greatest restrictions on free movement. But for Britain to keep his promises, we would have to erect a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – which would effectively become the “back door” option for migrants entering Britain from the EU. Farage heralds the Australia immigration model, but a closer look reveals that even Migration Watch says that the Australian model is “totally unsuitable” and admits that once you look at the figures behind the rhetoric, Australia has three times more migration proportionately than the UK.

The final model is best described as the Twilight Zone option – following the example set by Norway and Switzerland. But this too would fail to deal with migration issues, as Norway and Switzerland already have higher EU migration as a proportion of population than we do. Any Brexit proponents promising they can get access to the single market without free movement of people are selling a pup. So no real halt on EU migration with this model either.

Concerns about immigration mustn’t be brushed under the carpet – politicians should take them seriously. But at the same time, those wanting out must provide a better analysis of how they are going to deal with migration if they want to bring up the subject on the doorstep to bolster the no vote.

The truth they are currently leaving unspoken is that a Brexit would merely make those who are currently insecure at work more insecure, and deliver almost no change in the need for workers from abroad. If the outers really cared about those who feel threatened by immigration, they would propose aggressive enforcement of those breaking minimum-wage laws, promise a huge increase in skills development and support the living wage.

Of course, there is one absolutely failsafe way to reduce immigration: tanking the economy. Then we could go back to the good old days when we used to export our workers to far-flung European countries – and we would most definitely need free movement then. Auf Wiedersehen, Pet!