Brexit's Tech Brain Drain
gizmodo.co.ukA few anecdotes doesn't count as evidence. I voted for Remain, and hope very much that the Brexit process collapses and we end up staying in the EU. But I also don't want to spend the next 2 years being drip-fed poor quality articles about how we're going to hell in a handbasket.
I think that the chances of the Brexit process collapsing just collapsed themselves. The only way to do that was to not trigger Article 50.
Not quite:
> the UK will be able to revoke its notification of article 50 but this must be “subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”. [1]
So in short, remaining is less likely than ever but still possible.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...
True, but May has (repeatedly) threatened to go out 'without a deal' if she can't get terms she likes.
The UK has to somehow bluff its way into a negotiation position and I fail to see how all these statements and laws are compatible with each other.
Whilst you're perhaps correct, it's still not clear what triggering Article 50 actually means in practice. It's never been done and it's clear that the process was never really designed with a view to ever be invoked.
Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back, agreement or not, the clock ticks and after 2 years are up the separation is a fact. If people are hoping for a collapse of the Brexit after that point they are delusional, the only way this would reverse after that is by a new application, and I really don't see that ending up with the UK being in a better position after such a process than they have today. All kinds of exceptions were made to keep the UK in the EU, those are extremely unlikely to be granted a second time, especially not if the UK falls apart and Scotland ends up remaining.
The British prime minister is now making a strong play to pull Scotland out of the EU against their wishes, we'll likely see a race between the 'brexit' negotiators on the UK side and the Scottish 'remain' camp who will try to stay in without first exiting.
This is understandable from all points of view, the British government would rather like to negotiate from a slightly stronger position and the for the Scots because they were told they had to renegotiate their access to the single market if they seceded from the UK. Now that the British wish to exit that point has become moot which will most likely swing the referendum towards the Scots exiting the union. They probably feel quite cheated in Scotland.
> Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back
The UK has 2 year to retract as article 50 allows that. 2 years is a long period in UK politics during which a vote of no-confidence could happen, calling for new elections that could retract article 50. Even if the 2 years pass, the EU already said that they would fast track the UK back in if a future government wants to come back. This is not over.
It's unclear if A50 can actually be revoked. There is a court case (starting in Ireland, with the goal of getting to the CJEU in Luxembourg ASAP) which is trying to answer that question.
If the CJEU says that A50 cannot be revoked, then the Houses of Parliament can do whatever they want, they're leaving.
They would be free to rejoin. Euro, schengen, and metricification are mandatory now though.
> They would be free to rejoin. Euro, schengen, and metricification are mandatory now though.
Well, in principle they could get unanimous consent on concessions again, they just don't come pre-baked.
There has been a lot of fuss about those concessions in the past, I really wonder to what extent the poorer EU countries that had no say in this when those concessions were given would be willing to give the UK something they themselves had to give up to join. That might not go over well and there are a lot of those countries now. That's a dangerous game of roulette.
It's not only a case of "we didn't get these deals". The UK got them, it wasn't good enough so they left. If they want to rejoin they are admitting they made a huge mistake and can they pretty please come back?
Imagine you have a job, with a few perks other employees don't have, and you want more perks. And you don't get it, so you quit, complaining about how crap your employer is. A while later you ask for your old job back. What are the odds of you getting exactly the old perks back? ;)
It is unclear whether it can be revoked, yes. It is also unclear whether it cannot be revoked. It's simply unclear.
Exactly. Once that court case winds its way to the CJEU we will have a clear answer on that question.
I don't think you are correct, or at least, the UK supreme court thinks that you are not correct:
https://www.businessinsider.nl/uk-supreme-court-article-50-n...
You're misrepresenting the realities of A50 throughout this thread Jacques. The court case in question operated under the premise of the Government's position that A50 is irrevocable. Whether it is or not was not judged, it was just presumed to be irrevocable for the purpose of the case. That's a very important distinction.
A50 is revocable unless a court says it is not and even if questioned, the courts would more than likely rule that it can be revoked. The official position of the European Parliament is that is revocable (1), subject to some conditions that are set out (the UK can't use it as a negotiating tool essentially) and this is also the position of many important EU officials. Piet Eeckhout (EU law professor) recently remarked that it would be unconstitutional to deny the UK a right to revoke A50 should it wish to exercise that option.
It's also a mistake to judge A50 purely in legal terms, political reality is more important in this case. A point made abundantly clear by lawyers reporting on Brexit.
If there's a will on both sides to abandon Brexit, it will be done. For that to happen the political landscape and mood will have to reshape itself. Such a thing is not impossible given that confidence in the economy is trending down and people are becoming more pessimistic (2) and because the many complications that lie ahead will be coming to the foreground. If the choice before Parliament is between a disorderly exit without a deal in 2019 with very clear negative repercussions, it would be unthinkable if they do not intervene.
1) https://www.scribd.com/document/343381933/Draft-Resolution 2) https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/c36c...
Time will tell. The situation in the UK has worsened rather than improved over the past 9 months, if you feel that the 'realities' of article 50 are that you can submit and withdraw it willy-nilly than that goes against what the rest of EU media and politicians are saying. There are some new developments but those are fairly tenuous at this stage, maybe they will solidify in a way that would give the UK an 'out' but for now it looks like the UK will in fact use such an out to bolster their currently non-existing negotiation position (and I don't blame them).
The UK is a very divided place, as much as I don't like brexit (I think it is an exceptionally stupid move) I don't see the UK healing itself in time for this to be averted and the unanimous condition attached to any kind of revocation of Article 50 leaves very little room for hope.
May is on the record as saying that if there is no 'good deal' then there will be 'no deal', which is absolutely terrible for the UK, it's a game of continental chicken which will have only losers.
If the UK attempts to withdraw before negotations start then I give that some chance but if they first try to go through two years of negotiations and then attempt to withdraw as the deadline looms chances are very slim that they would be allowed to remain without serious concessions.
I'm curious now
> against what the rest of EU media and politicians are saying
I've been paying a very close eye to this so I'm confused, what sources are authoritatively stating that A50 can't be revoked? Your Supreme Court piece does not cover it. In the UK, the only reason why some politicians say A50 can't be revoked is out of a concern for how it could play into negotiations. It's not a commentary on whether A50 is revokable or not. If the EU say it's not, it isn't. And the European Parliament's official stated position is that it is revokable. And even if it wasn't the stated position, the UK would still be able to argue it on legal grounds.
> I don't see the UK healing itself in time for this to be averted
I don't think healing would be the needed element, rather it would be the overriding desire to avoid further division and pain. More division and pain are on the menu. Given how far positions have changed in a year, it would be terribly unwise to underestimate the degree to which the landscape can change in the next 2 years.
Pre-referendum leave voters were optimistic about the economic future. That's trending down.
Pre-referendum nobody was factoring in a Trump presidency and how it might affect the UK's place in the world.
Pre-referendum the vast majority of MPs in Parliament were pro-remain, something which was not reflected in post-referendum votes in Parliament (which is to say attitudes shifted and can shift again).
To me the most significant repercussion of A50 having now been initiated is the fact that all those MPs that felt bound to submit to a plebiscite vote now may feel free again to act with the national interest in mind, given that they can say that they have dutifully observed the will of the electorate. In other words, the power of the referendum vote diminishes by the day.
Imagine if one or two major factories close down in leave areas, or if investment is shrunk down in light of Brexit with major job losses as a result. This could easily swing public opinion. With the cost of living going up, this next 2 years is going to be a true pressure cooker for the Government.
> I've been paying a very close eye to this so I'm confused, what sources are authoritatively stating that A50 can't be revoked?
So have I. The only thing that has changed as far as I can see is that in the last couple of hours (and that's something I wasn't aware of when this thread came up) a number of politicians have said that they will propose a way for article 50 to be formally withdrawable. Up to now the status is that once article 50 has been triggered after 2 years, deal or no deal the separation is a fact and that there is no way back from that.
Any kind of suggestion that things are different ignores the actual text of article 50. The waters have been muddied a bit by the original author saying (but the bill not stating) that he meant for it to be withdrawable but I find that claim dubious, the only reason article 50 was drawn up in the first place was to allow for a way to exit the EU that nobody ever figured would be triggered at all.
Brexit took a lot of people (including the 'leave' camp) by surprise.
> And the European Parliament's official stated position is that it is revokable. And even if it wasn't the stated position, the UK would still be able to argue it on legal grounds.
Yes, they say that now. But that wasn't their position so far and these things have been made fairly clear. Again, my suspicion is that the impression so far was that the UK would not go so far as to actually trigger article 50, now that that has been done there is a substantial moving of the goalposts in order to allow the UK a way out. How they use that will be a big factor in whether or not the unanimous vote required to allow the UK to do so will be cast.
> I don't think healing would be the needed element, rather it would be the overriding desire to avoid further division and pain.
Judging by the comment sections of the various UK publications that desire is a long way off.
> Given how far positions have changed in a year, it would be terribly unwise to underestimate the degree to which the landscape can change in the next 2 years.
But they've gotten worse, not better, if this trend continues there is no way things will work out in favor of remain.
> Pre-referendum leave voters were optimistic about the economic future. That's trending down.
This is not my impression. My impression is that leave voters tend to downplay the economical impact of this and somehow believe that the UK as an independent entity will do a lot better because of 'all the money that goes to the EU'. Check out the comment threads under some of the articles linked here.
I suspect that thinking that people will come to their senses is one of the reasons the brexit vote happened the way it did in the first place.
> Pre-referendum nobody was factoring in a Trump presidency and how it might affect the UK's place in the world.
This seems to have emboldened the leave camp rather than weakened it.
In fact, there is something to say for Trump thanking his presidency to a similar emboldening of the pro Trump camp on the other side of the Atlantic. If brexit can happen anything can happen.
> Pre-referendum the vast majority of MPs in Parliament were pro-remain, something which was not reflected in post-referendum votes in Parliament (which is to say attitudes shifted and can shift again).
That's why there was a referendum in the first place. If it had been up to the MPs this would have never happened, they could see the economic impact a lot clearer than what you might be able to write on the side of a bus.
> To me the most significant repercussion of A50 having now been initiated is the fact that all those MPs that felt bound to submit to a plebiscite vote now may feel free again to act with the national interest in mind, given that they can say that they have dutifully observed the will of the electorate. In other words, the power of the referendum vote diminishes by the day.
That's wishful thinking. The referendum should never have been kept in the first place, now that it has been kept and a prime minister has made steps to withdraw the UK out of the EU they should start planning on how to run the country as an entity independently from the EU, anything less would be (another instance of) dereliction of duty. They were free to observe and to ignore the will of electorate in the past. That they did not do so has nothing to do with what's good for the UK or for their electorate, it only has to do with their own re-election.
The question then becomes: how fast will the economic situation deteriorate prior to an actual withdrawal, the more the better to illustrate what is to come after and maybe that will get people to realize this isn't all fun and games. But for now the 'wait-and-see' approach to this probably means that even though everybody will have a play-book on how to deal with the post brexit situation the majority of the parties will wait until very late in the process to move their assets and operations out of the UK, which will go a long way towards masking any of the real effects.
Of course the 'brexit' camp will paint that as fearmongering.
> Imagine if one or two major factories close down in leave areas, or if investment is shrunk down in light of Brexit with major job losses as a result.
Yes, it will. But until things are looking un-avoidable this will not happen. And by the time it is un-avoidable it is by definition too late. And when they do move it won't be just two major factories, it will be a whole slew of them in the space of a few months at the end of 2018 or thereabouts, for those that can move in two years. For others it may be later but at significantly higher costs (Nissan and BMW for instance).
> This could easily swing public opinion.
Public opinion is a dangerous thing to count on, that much should be clear from this whole exercise.
> With the cost of living going up, this next 2 years is going to be a true pressure cooker for the Government.
Yes. The problem I have with all this is that this triggering of article 50 should not have happened. That's a dangerous line to cross which puts the direction of the play in the hands of others. It is the beginning of the slide down and where that slide will end is anybody's guess. It's a bit like the Trump administration (forgive me, the UK has a much better functioning government than the United States at the moment but I think there are some parallels): making bold moves looks impressive because there is a lot of action, but longer term effects are far more important than the short term impression. Triggering article 50 to pander to the 'brexit' camp ('the will of the electorate') puts the UK in a very awkward position, if not followed through it allows the other side of the negotiation table to strengthen their position by simply waiting.
It also raises the expectations in the leave camp that brexit will actually happen.
Taking that away again could get ugly very quickly.
In order of preference: don't do that referendum, don't trigger article 50, don't exit the EU.
So we're one step closer to an actual exit, not one step closer to having this mess resolved in a way where all parties involved understand which side their bread is buttered on.
Added afterwards: In my opinion the whole brexit thing is powered by a yearning for things past, the time when the UK was an independent world power. So now a bunch of politicians (Johnson, Farage and others) have decided that they would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a medium sized fish in a much bigger pond. What they don't seem to realize is that on the world stage the UK really doesn't move the needle any more and that the strength of the EU lies in its unity and that the UK already had one of the best deals possible. These politicians will end up getting what they want and the 'leave' voters won't know how bad things really are until it is too late, but until then will be stuck in their convictions.
One thing you can be 100% sure of: any effects of brexit felt prior to the actual thing will in that camp be determined to be the fault of the EU, never the fault of the brexit voters.
Appreciate the comments here, some points:
- the draft resolution confirming that the EU endorses the possibility of revocation is consistent with noises made by EU politicians well in advance of the A50 notification. Tusk said it very clearly back in October (1). At the same time there are no EU sources that I know of that have suggested otherwise.
- The 'deal or no deal' rhetoric underlines the disadvantage of the UK in coming to a deal in a fixed time frame. It is not underlining the impossibility of aborting the withdrawal. This is more about how the UK will not be able to draw out exit negotiations in its favour while holding the EU hostage. Revocation is an advantage to the EU because at the end of the day, keeping the UK in the EU is still going to be a better than any other scenario on the table - money talks and without the UK EU members have a lot of unwanted budgeting pressures to sort out.
> But they've gotten worse, not better, if this trend continues there is no way things will work out in favor of remain.
I think evaluating the comment sections of publications is a very poor way to assess public opinion for a variety of reasons. This is why we have properly conducted surveys and surveys show that pre-referendum attitudes have shifted.
In the aggregate people are more pessimistic about the economic future, even leave voters. In my prior link you will find that its trending very steadily in one direction. Remember that leave voters pre-referendum by and large were working under the premise that Brexit would not have any personal cost attached to it. Surveys taken before the referendum have illustrated this. Another attitude highlighted in surveys that show that when leave voters are prompted how much money they would be willing to surrender in order to accomplish Brexit's stated goals, most leave voters balk (2). True public support for hard brexit (under no deal or under no customs union + no single market membership) is not strong at all and projected to get weaker as pressure builds around the economy and continued cuts and public service failures.
> Public opinion is a dangerous thing to count on, that much should be clear from this whole exercise.
Which is exactly the point. A government is helped having public opinion on its side, I'm saying shifts in attitude are already undermining future support for the way the UK pursues Brexit. None of the stated benefits of Brexit are due to unfold in the next 5 years and that realisation is not going unnoticed. We know there's no additional 350 million for the NHS being budgeted. We know there will be no trade deal in 2 years. We know that immigration is not going to be artificially cut. Deals with India and the US are a very long way of and if they transpire, they likely won't be good deals.
And I would argue that public support for the Brexit pursued by the UK currently never was very strong, even at its peak. The 'leave' vote got a majority because it was able to group public support for incompatible goals. Now the public finds out that most of those goals, if any at all, will come to pass or turn out to be an illusion (such as the supposed increase in sovereignty) public opinion only has one way to go.
I'm more bullish on the odds of Brexit being aborted now than at any point before. I still think the odds are low, but they are much better than they were before. I know the British press is going to interpret A50 as being the nail in the coffin for EU membership, but it's not a difficult analysis to come to the contrary position:
The only thing that has been predictable so far is the government doing a poor job at preparation, execution and thinking steps ahead. Every step of the way it's making strategic, tactical mistakes and fumbling on policy. It's the one thing we can count on. The odds of a deal being done in 24 months are slim in part because of this. And if there is no deal in time, 650 MPs will have to think hard a simple choice: it can green light a national disaster brought onto it by itself, or it can intervene.
It was politically tough to oppose the A50 notification because it will be regarded as subverting a democratic result. Inside of 2 years time, it will be at least as politically damaging to not intervene in a national disaster. And MPs that have blessed the notification now can credibly oppose government performance on Brexit while being inoculated against the charge that they are subverting the will of an electorate.
What are the odds that the government negotiates a good deal or any deal at all? They are not that good at all, just given all the things that are outside the control of the UK. The momentous act of revoking the withdrawal - while unthinkable now - will look like the better option down the line. EU's history is full of members changing their minds. All it takes is for the UK government to be consistent with past performance and do a poor job at what is the toughest project it has ever undertaken since WW2. There are other plausible outcomes, but Brexit is nowhere near as avoidable as most think.
But let there be no mistake, this whole is a gigantic mess no matter how it unfolds.
1) http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/10/18/can-an-arti... 2) http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/hard-brexit-only-if...
It's possible they could extend negotiations. As long as the EU and UK parliaments both agree to do that, they can do whatever they like, as they can just change the law to support whatever they're trying to do.
Whether there will be enough public support to do that is another matter entirely. Perhaps there will be another general election or referendum which will muddy the waters.
If the last year has taught us anything, it's that the world is a very uncertain place right now, and all predictions are worthless.
Well, that may be how the UK sees it but I can pretty much guarantee that that is not how the rest of the EU will see things. The automatic end to the negotiations and finalization after two years is currently the law, it would probably be best to go on the assumption that that's exactly how it will play out. There is some sense on the UK side that the UK will come out of the negotiations in a better position than what they have right now in the EU, but the European side is adamant that no matter what the UK will not come out of this better than when they were a part of the EU, and this makes good sense (otherwise, why would any nation remain part of the bloc).
Also, the UK has just handed the EU all their strong cards in the negotiations, and if the Scots exit the union that position will get weaker still.
Keep in mind that the exceptional situation the UK has (had?) in the EU was always an annoyance to other member states but was tolerated in order to keep the UK in the EU. If the UK falls apart and Scotland re-joins (or even remains) then the UK negotiation position with respect to those exceptions has evaporated, something that would definitely be appreciated in other EU countries.
Other general elections of referenda will not muddy the waters from an EU perspective, the deed is done, any regret will now take the form of a re-application, which will likely include the UK giving up their own currency, becoming a part of the Schengen area and getting rid of all the exceptions that were made for the UK.
This was a dumb move if there ever was one, such major decisions should require a supermajority, not a simple majority and May did a huge dis-service to the UK just now. But by the time the chickens come home to roost she'll be enjoying her pension sitting under banner reading 'I gave the people of England what they asked for, not what they needed'.
> As long as the EU and UK parliaments both agree to do that
Under Article 50(3), extensions can only be granted by unanimity in the Council. The EP and Council both need to agree to a final agreement, but the EP doesn't seem to be involved in extensions at all.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on...
They'll only let us back in the club if they choose to from now on [1].
Basically, they've left the door open for us to vote in a pro-EU party in the next general election and abandon the whole thing. That's why they won't agree a trade deal in the next 2 years.
They're hoping, like me, that things will get sufficiently bad in the next 2 years the public gives a mandate to a pro-EU party, and the whole sorry mess can be averted, and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...
> They'll only let us back in the club if they choose to from now on
I think this is basically correct. I also think that if, before the 2 years are up, the UK changes its mind about Brexit, the EU would be very likely to allow its membership to continue.
I very much hope this to be the case. I just don't see it happening in the current political climate in England.
England probably would have to be prepared to lose a number of privileges should that happen.
It would certainly be the best outcome of a very bad situation.
> and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.
I hope you're kidding here. Trying people who won the previous election for treason is the mark of the worst dictatorships. Please don't.
Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage never won any election ;)
>and then we can try Johnson, Farage and the other scumbag liars for treason.
And/or a serious rethink about the value of a free press that is allowed to act as News Corp. (The Sun, The Times) and Daily Mail and General Trust (Daily Mail, Metro, and previously the Evening Standard) have.
But what that means in practice is another thing entirely. For example, the DPRK and the ROK are still at war with each other, but that just means that they stare down each other at a border. The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever.
Really powerful entities want to keep their shareholders happy by avoiding complicated regulations on international activities, and they have a lot of political influence. The people of London for example are mighty pissed.
That's the wishful thinking so much projected by the brexiteers. And I believe they're very wrong.The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever.While London may remain a financial hub it will lose its importance. Multinational banks and insurances are alredy preparing to move entire departments to the continent. Especially France is extremely hard nosed in not providing the UK financial industry with passporting rights.
Frankfurt and Luxembourg are also yapping happily about the prospects of new jobs and businesses. And London is about to lose the privilege to clear deals in Euros.
Import / export has a lot to lose too. managing supply chains, without manufacturing just can't function in times of lean production and just-in-time manufacturing, gets incredibly harder and more expensive.
Universities? If you believe that they will just shrug it off I'm afraid you're in for a huge surprise. English universities will lose EU research grants. But the worst is that they will lose on foreign talent. Real talented scientists will think hard if they want to move to England in the current xenophobic climate and seek out alternatives.
The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much.
And BTW: Comparing the situation between the EU and England with that in Korea is, well, grasping for straws? in any case it's a really bad, if not ludicrous argument.
Despite the defiance showed by some English politicians and the tabloid press I think that in reality England is in for a world of self-inflicted hurt. And mostly those people that enthusiastically voted to leave.
More interestingly cross border co-operation between engineering companies will become harder. For example a part for the BMW Mini crosses the channel 3 times before being fitted https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/brexit-uk-c...
Was anyone else reminded of John Harvey-Jones versus Morgan, where he bawled them out for pushing a car chassis up and down a hill several times as part of their production line?
Can't help thinking BMW might need to look at that anyway, regardless of Brexit.
> The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much.
And that's under NATO right now, so the EU does not lose much in that respect.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no such thing as 'out' but 'in', and no matter how pissed the people of London are their prime minister has just done something that is essentially irrevocable.
I'm pretty sure a mass political movement could in fact stop it. But it would have to be every Remainer out on the streets shutting things down kind of scenario. Our political autonomy extends beyond the proscriptions of those who govern us, whose express purpose is to create illusionary limits about our courses of action. Ghandhi and the Civil Rights movement demonstrated this, we've just been convinced into forgetting.
Chances of such a thing happening are extremely slim, but you are right, if all the remainers would simply shut the UK down then it might work, but that would require the rest of the EU to over-rule the signing of Article 50 by the current UK prime minister and I doubt they would go along with that. It might be worth a try, but last week would have been a much better time.
> Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back
It seems that EU lawmaking bodies disagree with you: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-stop-ar...
That's contrary to this (but more recent, in fact, it isn't law right now):
https://www.businessinsider.nl/uk-supreme-court-article-50-n...
And I note that it requires unanimous agreement between all the other member states, which is a very rare thing. So a very thin maybe.
Same publication, today: http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-5...
Well, here's to hoping. But that's very thin ice. Maybe it will grow a bit thicker in the next two years.
Yeah, I could see it going the other way as well. Easy for 1 or more member states to say "Why should we let you back? You're always asking for other special deal."
I also get the feeling that if the process fails during the negotiations, that's the absolute worst way. It will divide the population further and the EU will be the scapegoat again.
The UK has had 9 months to mend its divided population. Get the facts back as first class citizen in debates, firmly drive out the hate-fueled arguments out and draw a picture of how they wanted the UK to be, realistic picture, not the Leave campaign fantasy. Finally with that done, let the houses discuss where the EU helped or hindered and then vote to proceed or not.
That's not how it happens, dialog didn't happen, the UK is at the same stage of division today (or worse) as it was 9 months ago.
Oh nonsense. If enough people change their minds there will be another referendum or some crisis meetings. 'We can't stop it now,' is self-destructive rationalization.
That's the UK politicians position, not mine. They could have easily stopped last week. "brexit means brexit" and "no deal we leave anyway". Blustering tough talk but who it is supposed to impress I'm not sure about. The self-destructive element is on the UK side and the sooner they realize it the better.
Agreed. Sorry for being snarky, I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.
> I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.
Join the club. I did not believe that May would be silly enough to push this through as far as she has, it's like watching someone aim a gun at their feet and pulling the trigger in slow motion.
She won't be remembered kindly.
The UK spent decades pulling itself out of the slump it was in in the mid 80's of the last century, now it is rushing as fast as it can to repeat the experience.
The only silver lining I can see here is that if once brexit is a fact the rejoining could happen rapidly after the Scots break away from the union and England and Wales (and possibly Northern Ireland) realize that it's not working out. But say goodbye to the pound and any exceptions the UK has right now in that case.
It's an own goal if there ever was one.
And no worries about being snarky, it's totally understandable, fortunately I'm on this side of the channel where the impact will be spread out. If I had my eggs in the UK basket I would be a lot less agreeable than merely snarky.
The paragraph after the heading 'Why This Matters' sort of addresses the fact that it is anecdotal and how it might still have significance.
Personally I find the article does read a bit like scaremongering propaganda.
If you want data not anecdotes, then it's early days but here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...
Don't you think that its strange that the UK can't train enough nurses (sisters) and has to import nurses from poorer countries?
I guess the nationwide (near) monopoly on healthcare, the National Health Service (NHS) will have to start paying market prices for nurses as well as start more training programs instead of relying on importing cheaper labor.
To say that there aren't enough Brits to do the nursing in a population of 60 million is ridiculous.
The elites in Britain (and perhaps the entire wealthier countries of the EU) basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor. In the case of healthcare, it is simply a means for the government to pay less for healthcare than they would if there were a competitive market instead of their monopoly.
It wasn't absolutely necessary to have the free flow of labor as part of the EU trade agreement. For example, NAFTA between US, Canada, and Mexico does not allow for the free flow of labor, only the free flow of good. I can't think of any trade agreements that the US has with other countries that allows for the free flow of labor. The free flow of labor benefits elites (think professional hiring nannies, government running health services, companies running factories, firms running high tech needing software developers) to help depress wages. Now the elites of Britain will have to start paying market rates for their labor.
> The elites in Britain basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor
And you have hit on a basic truth there. A fair part of the vote to leave was because of economic hardship. A fair part of that is because of the perception of "people coming over here and working for less". But every employee has an employer. Government and business can do a lot to set industrial policy, starting with funding for education (for doctors, nurses etc), and minimum wage levels (for field & factory workers).
Emphasis on "can". They didn't.
Thanks for that link, in between all the rhetoric it's hard to get a clear signal. Do you happen to have any idea where that data comes from? It seems a little suspicious only because the dates chosen for comparisons seems a little cherry-picked, so it's hard to tell if the changes are routine or exceptional.
> Only 96 nurses joined the NHS from other European nations in December 2016 – a drop from 1,304 in July, the month after the referendum.
Comparing December to July? Maybe it's semi-annual data? What's the normal level of variance?
> 2,700 EU nurses left the health service in 2016, compared to 1,600 EU nurses in 2014 – a 68% increase.
Comparing 2016 to 2014? What happened to 2015, or 2013?
The article notes that this is from "freedom of information responses compiled by the Liberal Democrats from 80 of the 136 NHS acute trusts in England", but I can't seem to find a direct source; some things talk about the "Centre for Workforce Intelligence", but I can't get anything specific from there, and other things reference the "Nursing and Midwifery Council", which appears to be a voluntary registration system, but as far as I can tell does not generally publish statistics.
And how many were hired in the previous December? When it comes to The Guardian, I find that numbers can be very "flexible" when the narrative demands it.
This will become clear over time. All too clear, I fear.
Agreed, we need data, not just anecdotes.
That said, I imagine a lot of skilled workers are going to reason differently than you and leave.
What's the likelihood it will collapse? How could that happen?
I'm one of the soon-to-be-expat Brits. Like Herr Pierzina, I'm also troubled by the IP Act.
Moving is really not fun, but move I must: the IP Act is unconscionable in many parts, and Brexit takes away one of the few powers that could fight those parts.
Two Home Secretaries in a row that just don't get encryption.
My time is split between finishing my novel, learning German, and trying to catch up on tech that came out while I was writing.
> My time is split between finishing my novel, learning German, and trying to catch up on tech that came out while I was writing.
Thanks for sharing!
There is more tech on heaven and earth, Horatio, then can be caught up amidst your philosophies.
Oui, aber mit Deutsche, kaj Esperanoto, και Ελληνικά, I think my philosophies may be broader than most.
More seriously, I know I would be surprised if more than 5% leave willingly. I don't want to go, I just see no choice. Our collective departure will probably boost the wages for developers who do stay in the UK, but by how much, and against which currencies I would not dare to say — economics is an expert level subject, of which I know only the basics.
I actually would be one of the developers to come in. As bad as your problems are in the UK, the USA are far worse especially with your browser history effectively being able to be sold to the highest bidder[0]
Not mentioned([0]) is the fact that hiring and recruiting companies will be able to [ab]use this data
[0] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-browser-history-could-...
I sympathise, but I seriously recommend looking at the UK government's attitude towards encryption and privacy before you jump here. They mean well, but… well, the support material for the IP act reads like their understanding of the internet hasn't changed since 1998.
Part of the Investigation Powers Act is that particular ISPs will be required to store an unspecified dataset related to your browsing history for 12 months, and that they have to keep secret the fact that they are doing so.
It's at least somewhat ironic, though, that the first person profiled in the article is from Norway, as Norway has always rejected EU membership. If you're upset about Britain leaving the EU, "taking your talents back to Norway" makes it sound like EU membership isn't exactly top of your concerns.
Norway is in the single market though. Not the same as being in the EU but clearly here conflated (and the most significant difference to what the UK wants).
> as Norway has always rejected EU membership
But Norway is in the European Economic Area, meaning the (all or nothing) agreement for "the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the European Single Market".
if keeping those freedoms are your concern, then you have every right to prefer Norway over England.
But negotiations haven't even started between UK and EU over the terms of the exit and what the relationship will look like in 2 years. Seems this article is trying to take a few anecdotes that have a tenuous relationship at best to Brexit being the real root cause of these people leaving.
The EU have been consistently clear that those freedoms are "all or nothing" - you don't e.g. get free trade without free movement, end of.
I would be delighted if England gets the "all" deal like Norway, but that's unlikely since to the Leavers that's a "why bother" Brexit In Name Only.
Both sides have said we won't be in the single market.
Foolish and premature.
The UK government has not expressed any intention to restrict skilled immigration in industries facing skills shortages.
It is totally unrestricted immigration of low-skilled individuals that the government (and it's fair to say the British population) are opposed to.
I think you're missing the point here. These are people who are already here talking about leaving because of a climate of anti-european and more broadly, anti-foreign attitudes in the UK at the moment. I've no doubt the current government will make it less onerous for people like them to come, the difference now is, would they want to?
Britain's biggest buy-to-let landlord bans 'coloured people' because of 'the curry smell' [1]
how is this even legal in UK.
1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/britains-biggest-...
Although this particular instance is distasteful, as a general rule do you not think individuals should be free to choose who to rent their properties to?
What's the alternative; forcing him to accept tenants he doesn't want?
Next thing you'll be criticising laws against employer discrimination. If someone wants an all white company, what's wrong with that? You want to force employers to hire people they don't want?
Not sure if your analogy is correct. If someone wants an all white company is discrimination. But if someone wants swedish speaking people and they all happen to be white it's no longer a problem.
Same with the tenants. I might prefer to rent my property to a woman because she takes care of the place better and is less likely to throw a party. Is that a discrimination?
Point is if there's an objective reason behind it then it's hard to consider it discrimination, even if it segments the groups on race/gender/religion.
Actually in the states that can still be discrimination and you can still be charged. Obviously it would be judged by a jury of your peers, however people have been successfully charged with discrimination in the states even when they defended themselves with your exact argument. Ethical concerns aside your advice is extremely legally dangerous.
Yes, I fully understand your point and I don't think anyone will take my comment as an advice, it's just my opinion.
The problem is quite complex and hard to solve in one shot.
In the United States yes that is one of the consequences of running a business. In the states you legally cannot deny service on the basis of any protected class. Protected classes include Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age (40+), Sex, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Familial Status, Disability Status, Veteran status, and Genetic information. This is because forcing him to accept tenants he doesn't want is a much smaller injustice than people being unable to get serviced because of something they cannot help. I hope this helps you understand that nobody's rights are more important than anyone else's.
That sounds like an enormous oversimplification of what, I imagine, is an extremely complex area of the law.
In the case of prospective tenants, I assume a fair degree of self-incrimination would be required to prove discrimination based on a protected characteristic.
To the point about some people's rights being "more important" than others', rights are a zero-sum game.
Giving protected classes a right to service from businesses necessarily comes at the cost of business owners' rights to refuse service.
The law is necessarily concerned with determine whose rights are "more important" in these cases.
It's actually very simple and let me be extremely clear here, this is NOT about picking someone's rights over others, this is about the magnitude of injustice. Here's a list of people incriminated for discrimination by month for violating fair housing rules. In February for example Oklahoma landlords were found discriminating against Veterans with disabilities. Laws are written to protect the most vulnerable FIRST, not the most protected first. It's absolutely unconscionable to protect for example landlords over our veterans.
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fa...
This is anecdotal, but my friends in the UK (typically working on their PhD or medical doctors from the EU) have already encountered open hostility and have little intention to stay to be exploited for their skills without any guarantee.
To be explored for their skills? You mean entering into voluntary paid employment, in a civilized western democracy with some of the highest standards of living in the world?
Their education mostly or totally happened at the expense of other states and the way they're being treated means that they don't get adequate recognition for their work, so yes, exploited.
They can go to work in other, more civilized, western democracies where they're not made to feel unwelcome. Standards of living in the UK aren't that special and these people are there because they're tied to specific research projects, not because it's a great country.
Perhaps GP is referring to Marx's theory of exploitation in which surplus value is appropriated from the workers. Many people, especially in jobs which require a lot of equipment (e.g physics, theoretical physics) can't enter self-employment or become bourgeoisie themselves, in which case they are almost forced by societal structure to stay as a member of the proletariat and thusly paid wages for labour-time during which they perform extra labour which is collected as surplus.
That's a reasonable take on what GP was referring to, though I'm not sure if that's it. Exploitation of human capital is everywhere, whether in Britain or China. The standards of living and 'civilised Western democracy' are meaningless and irrelevant to the theory of exploitation.
The political climate in the UK is currently leaning towards being hostile towards benefits being paid to EU citizens.
Why should I pay taxes for benefits that I can't use?
I'll go somewhere where I'm wanted.
It seems they are reconsidering, so no, not voluntary. They voluntarily started worked, now things have changed and they do not think that was a good decision.
They are engaged in a voluntary exchange of labor for remuneration.
Nobody is compelling them to work. They are not slaves.
You're being disingenuous. You should try moving a long term research project to a different country, see how flexible it is. Some of these people are currently paid with EU funds, even.
It is totally unrestricted immigration of low-skilled individuals that the government (and it's fair to say the British population) are opposed to.
This may be the case. Brexit is the dumbest solution to that particular problem though.
Had any other solutions been made available, Brexit probably wouldn't be happening.
The EU chose to not make solutions available and stuck it into a "take it or leave it" basket. It seems to me to be a recurring pattern with over-centralized government that they start using more and more of their power this way; you can see it in the US now too, for instance in the way the Trump administration is continuing to saber rattle about either enforcing immigration laws as they choose or cutting off as much Federal funding as they can from cities and states that refuse to comply with their interpretation. It's a very tempting way to exert power, but it makes the system increasingly fragile as you do it, because you eventually get to the point where people start seriously considering and/or triggering the "leave it" option (see also Calexit, for instance; still not very serious but certainly more serious now than it was a year ago).
Jerf, you're a smart fellow, this comment is not at your usual level. The EU exists solely to reduce the chances of war, further commerce and to reduce the profile of nation states.
The 'take it or leave it' attitude has to do with the founding principles of the EU, if a club has a founding principle and you do not wish to subscribe to it then by definition you can't be part of the club. Putting the founding principles of the EU on the chopping block to deal with the internals of a single country is not acceptable.
In such a situation the single country then has the option to either resolve their internal conflict or to leave the union.
This has nothing to do with over-centralized government or the Trump administration, it's simply the reason why the EU exists in the first place.
The UK already has a special position within that EU, amplified by virtue of being an island. The illusion that the UK can 'go it alone' is still very strong but I suspect that when the rubber meets the road there will be some pretty harsh and quick realizations that the promised utopia is not going to arrive. The brunt of the impact will land squarely in the demographic that voted 'brexit' so at least there is some justice but it will also be felt elsewhere in the country.
The UK's days as an independent world power were counted in the 60's. Being part of the EU was good for the UK and good for the EU. A UK that will be further diminished when and if the Scots leave the union.
All in all this is a very bad decision made by the UK and the UK alone, to ask the EU to put their founding principles on hold for the UK was going to have a very predictable outcome.
The irony of all this is that now the UK will go into a very uncertain phase the best exit of which is to rejoin the EU at a later date, but then it will be without any privileged position, likely without their own coin and likely with a much worse negotiation position than they had so far.
Please do not point your finger at the EU about this debacle, it belongs solely to the UK and specifically to BJ, Farage et al. If you wish to apportion blame they should be your primary targets, and May you secondary for going further down a road that need not be taken at all.
What do you suggest the EU should have done? Free movement is one of the cornerstones of the EU and pretty much not up for negootiation. This includes associated countries like Norway or Switzerland.The EU chose to not make solutions available and stuck it into a "take it or leave it" basket.So I'm really curious: What, do you suggest, should the EU have offered?
"pretty much not up for negootiation."
You basically reiterate my point, that it is "take it all or leave it".
The first step to a solution is obvious right from your phrasing: Put it up for a negotiation. Stop viewing this as "take it all or leave it".
Or, alternatively, be ready to deal with "leave it" as an option. Which, I'd observe, the EU legally was, as this is a legal option that has always existed and is now occurring with no bloodshed, which as these things go is still a well-above-average accomplishment. But psychologically the EU was clearly not ready for this; the expectation is still clearly that, like the United States, members may join but not leave.
> The first step to a solution is obvious right from your phrasing: Put it up for a negotiation. Stop viewing this as "take it all or leave it".
That’s like saying we should put the right to live up for negotiation, as humans don’t need to live anyway.
If you allow free trade without free movement, companies can move all jobs to another country, and your country might end up with no jobs, and all people poor and fucked.
The only way to guarantee fairness in trade is if your citizen can move to wherever the jobs are, too.
This is a constitutional cornerstone of the EU.
Then the EU apparently wrote into its constitutional cornerstone something that was not possible to manifest in the real world, and as a result it is breaking up, at least a little now and possibly still more in the future. Again, at least it is doing so without bloodshed.
The EU has no ontological right to exist. It is not an immutable fact of the universe. It is not rationally or logically valid to reason from "The EU requires this attribute for it to exist as I envision it" to "This attribute must be attainable at a reasonable price." or any variant on that.
I take a historical view on these things. Things are always changing. There exists no polity in history that only grew and never shrank, excepting only those polities that are new enough to not have shrunk yet.
I'm actually sort of becoming something of a secessionist. Not pro-Brexit or pro-Calexit or pro-any-particular-secession, but just generally in favor of the idea that since polities are inevitably going to shrink at some point in the future, it is preferable to make sure that such processes are as easy and as bloodless as possible. People shouldn't need to die by the thousands or millions for something so predictable. I am coming to believe it is a mistake to ever think that one can "permanently" bind a smaller polity into a larger one. And I believe the US has the much greater problem here! The US has no established mechanism for leaving (though a Constitutional amendment could make it possible), and a big ol' Civil War that says it's not possible in the bloodiest possible way. To the extent that we are having similar issues arise in the US, we have no peaceful mechanism for dealing with it.
The EU is well short of breaking up; that's "fog in channel, continent cut off" territory. It's the UK that's breaking up, and I think you know it.
The north of my island, Ireland, is a particularly interesting question, independent of Scotland, pardon the pun. Certain breeds of criminals get very fat on smuggling.
The EU is breaking up a little now. It's concrete now. It is no longer correct to claim it is not breaking up to a non-zero extent. And there are other countries that are at least making noise about leaving that I would consider feasible candidates over the next 5-10 years.
The UK is definitely facing a lot of stress and I'd place the odds of something breaking away, and that part possibly even rejoining the EU (though that remains to be seen; in the amount of time it will take to accomplish that the calculations of cost/benefit for joining the EU may shift substantially) in the next 5-10 years as quite high.
As someone who just identified as "a bit of a secessionist", I haven't got much motivation for sugarcoating these things, nor even necessarily considering "denying the possibility of secession" as a form of sugarcoating. I'm not sure what the "and I think you know it" bit is for.
I also consider the US a good candidate for some separation. Relatedly, though this isn't "secession" in the same sense, I wouldn't be surprised the Middle East has some country lines that look very different in 20 years. If the world gets into a secessionist mood, Catalan may finally peel away, Quebec separatism could heat up again, and if one listens to the little whispers coming out of China I wouldn't consider it out of the question it ends up cracked into a few pieces. The world has been awfully stagnant politically for a long time, even before we consider the radical technical and social shifts occurring at a rate never before seen in history; I find it implausible that all these changes won't eventually result in some sort of manifestation on the globe. I would not be surprised we're coming up on one of the "punctuations" in a punctuated equilibrium; my interest (to the extent that it matters, which is virtually nil) is not in preventing that from happening, but making sure it happens with as little dying as possible.
Britain didn't take advantage of the tools it had available. Britain could have kicked out people who stayed more than 6 months without a job, for example. But they didn't.
What would be a better solution?
The UK government has not expressed any intention to restrict skilled immigration in industries facing skills shortages.
That doesn't seem to be the case:
Employers would have to pay a £1,000-a-year fee for every EU skilled worker they bring in after Brexit, under plans being considered by the Government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-...
or not:
THE Prime Minister has denied the Government is to introduce a £1k charge on every skilled worker from an EU member state recruited by a British employer after Brexit.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/753130/May-slaps-down-minis...
ohh, the PM was wrong. Actually, it is introduced next month:
The Home Office has finally published some details on the Immigration Skills Charge Levy, which will come into force on 6 April 2017, subject to parliamentary approval.... The skills charge will be £1,000 per year of the visa (so £3,000 for a 3-year visa) for medium or large sponsors and £364 per year (so £1,092 for a 3-year visa) for charitable or small sponsors...
http://ellint.net/news/sector/cross-border-hr-policies/immig...
I guess the UK doesn't want skilled immigrants.
it's mostly there to have a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU.
So, they are asking businesses to pony up the equivalent of one Starbucks coffee per day for skilled immigrants? The horror!
Apart from the farming industry that loves its poor eastern Europeans to pick crops and is lobbying to keep them - Quite what the average brexit voter thinks about this in east Anglia is another matter
An endless supply of low-skilled, cheap labour is great for some industries, but not for your average citizen.
This is particularly true when public services are stretched, and there is a chronic shortage of housing.
That is the perception, at least.
I have to ask if you have ever applied for a UK visa, because dealing with the Home Office for visas is very painful, and choosing to relocate now, with a reasonable expectation of having to go through that process I would consider to be rational.
> The loss of a handful of technologists might not feel immediately urgent but may signal a larger trend.
...and it may not. More brexit fear-mongering.
The Brexit is just one of key changes hitting the UK tech working / start-up / corporate environments in the moment.
Brexit, IP Act, changes to IR35 (in / out), the £ drop, announcements of major city firms to reduce staff by 30%+, slowing global economies (real not what statistics are telling), UK service price increases of 10% - 20% as seen in the last months or to come with e.g. electricity, IT and communication services in the next weeks.
All these contribute to a climate of uncertainty and making the UK less competitive.
I've been closely watching various areas of the IT contractor market for the last months - these are normally very good indicators how healthy the industry is / how positive or negative forward looking is.
In more than 15 years I have never seen these markets being as bad as they are in the moment.
This might all sound very gloomy, but if the UK government continues with their path as seen in the last months, they are burning the ground we all in the UK stand on.
> In more than 15 years I have never seen these markets being as bad as they are in the moment
Care to elaborate a bit on this? I'm genuinely interested.
After Brexit everyone in Zurich thought that all FinTech startups would move from London to Frankfurt or maybe Zurich, since Switzerland has tight relationships with the EU.
This did not seem to happen.
Also, I haven't gotten more UK people asking me for tech jobs in Zurich compared to before Brexit. (I run a tech recruiting agency; happy to help people who want to move to Switzerland, you finde the recently released job-list here: https://coderfit.catsone.com/careers/ - job-descriptions are still WIP, please bear with us)
> This did not seem to happen.
Slowly does it. It would not be fair to say that nothing is happening:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/goldman-m...
The draft EU position has "no special deal for the City of London" which makes a lot of things moving out of London very likely.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...
The UK is a EU member, will full rights and full obligations. Now, and at least for the next two years.
Brexit has not yet happened, by a long stretch of imagination. A letter has been delivered, nothing more and nothing less.
Supply chains have not changed, work rights have not changed, residence and movement rights have not changed, trade costs have not changed, taxation rules have not changed.
The only real change up to now has been the depreciation of the pound. That would mean that less foreign applicants are interested in moving to the UK, but there is less of an argument about whether UK nationals are more interested in moving to the rEU, for two reasons:
- less mobility of UK citizens, because of low proficiency levels in foreign languages
- higher rates / salary in the UK, which still holds even after the devaluation of the pound.
You will not see big changes in a long time, even if Brexit turns out to be a game changer (for the better or worse)
Your ability to connect any recruitment related article discussing something local for anywhere in the world to your recruiting agency in Zurich is impressive:) I don't normally recognize people on HN without looking at the nickname but I know it's you all the time :)
Thank you! I honestly primarily try to add value.
Some people moved because of these posts, so I hope my outreach has a positive net impact on the HN community.
> I hope my outreach has a positive net impact on the HN community.
And of course on your wallet.
It's not so much actually. If you think recruiting is easy money, you are wrong.
I think that one major reason this did not happen so far is because the rest of the EU was hoping the UK would come to their senses and cancel their brexit ambition. Now that it is a fait accompli you can expect all these things to actually happen. Frankfurt has good chances, Amsterdam and Paris a bit less so, Switzerland does not have any better position than London so I fail to see why that would happen if there would be a reason to move. Whoever wants to be represented in Zurich is already there.
this is especially silly given the fact that switzerland isnt exactly part of the EU, either.
It has begun. One of our best developers is moving back to Poland. I can't say I blame him.
Surely this is a victory for Poland?
That depends, are there companies in Poland that can make good use of his specific skills? You cannot ignore the effects of matching people with the jobs where they are most productive. People moving between countries is not a zero sum game.
A lot has changed in Poland trough past couple years especially for developers. You can now get decent salary in major cities. It's still not as good as in UK where you can have decent salary in cities with population of 30k+ but it's getting there, plus there is always Germany witch is close enough.
Quick story. I am working for small UK holidays company located in one of the biggest IT hubs outside of London. Our whole dev team is made up from non UK, EU citizens. Recently we had openings for mid backend dev and junior/mid frontend dev roles and only about 20% of CVs was from native UK citizens (mostly, highly under qualified even for junior role/couldn't pass FizzBuzz). Rest of candidates was mix of EU, visas and double citizenship and we ended up offering both positions to two EU citizens.
If UK government will ban employment of people from outside of UK or make it difficult or expensive then small companies like ours will not be able to operate.
I see that developers are looking more and more for jobs outside of the UK. Recruiters and EU employers also can see what is going on and I'm receiving more job offers from them, offering help with relocation outside of UK.
There are some decent companies on the tech area. Poland is one of the "cheap" EU countries with decent workers, that's a good reason to have a big office there.
Isn't your company enlightened enough to let him work remotely?
Ultimate Irony: if the Brexit leads to brain drain leads to importing more immigrants.
We've already been told this won't lead to a drop in immigration as we need the staff. The power to control it will be ours but we won't be exercising it.
I know at least one programmer who is leaving the UK because of Brexit. Personally I am staying put and assuming things will work out ok.
Same here, EU citizen thinking about the future of my family. I'm in the "wait and see" mode, but if things ugly with the negotiation I will prepare to leave.
I think the biggest problem is not the brain drain, it's the uncertainty. I was planning to buy a house here, but I'm not going to now. This is bad for me and bad for the UK.
I'm staying for now. Don't want to unnecessarily disrupt my family. But if leaving is what's best for them, I'll be out of the door and won't look back.
I know a few who have moved on too. Not many, but time will tell.
Are they truly leaving, actually making plans and the like or did they just say they were going to leave because I heard countless friends talk of leaving for Canada if Trump won and not a damn one did.
> and not a damn one did.
Since the Patriot Act and other changes in the early 2000s, your nationality is henceforth Sticky if you live in the US.
My sister expatriated last year (to UK, actually) from US, and she had to hire an immigration attorney, go through interrogations (from both destination and comefrom), and actually got sent back to the US once they found accidentally conflicting stories from her friends who currently live in the UK.
I'd never make fun of people who express desire to leave. Not everyone has the same circumstances as you.
I have not made fun of everyone, I only pointed out the perennial "flee to Canada" claims in light of the most recent "bad thing."
He has accepted the new job. Not only because of Brexit of course, there are always multiple reasons for moving. His wife had been getting racist / xenophobic comments.
I think Brexit is probably the best decision Britain has made since WWII second only to electing Thatcher.
I would have imagined that techies would appreciate this the most. The E.U is a bureaucratic, insatiable behemoth. Too many regulations and I would like to think that this is something techies have a great disdain for. I mean, just look at how unfairly the E.U has treated co.s like Google, Microsoft and Uber - these companies have deliberately been attacked by the E.U using antitrust laws among other regulations.
How has this helped the situation? I'd say, in no way. Stopping American companies from thriving in the E.U won't help the situation. Instead, learning from previous mistakes and correctly anticipating/predicting the next wave would be greatly rewarded by market forces and this would be the best thing for individual, sovereign European countries.
Please watch this video about the insane E.U laws I've mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44YTTyQKyJQ
The drain in brains goes mainly west in planes.
I considered Silicon Valley until I realised how different UK and US politics are. Extreme right wing in the UK is a bit to the left of Obama.
If the EU does collapse, I'll consider Canada.
Actually, the people mentioned in the article are mainly going east or south.
Not with Trump looming in the west.
I'm in a similar position: I've recently left (to Spain, working remotely) originally temporarily, but the further this goes the less tempted I am to ever head home.
That said, this is all anecdotal. Still, while anecdotes aren't data, they do suggest that there could be some interesting data hidden nearby... Is there any hard research or even just large surveys that are actually looking at this?
If the roles they are leaving are truly "in demand", the market will make up for it.
For perspective, that feeling of, "Wow! This place is different now" is what some of these same people were imposing on the locals.
This article seems like it was solely written to make Leave voters feel guilty and further shame them in the eyes of those who voted Stay. What else could be the point?
And the final sentences of the piece undermine the rest of it.
> Many technologists interviewed will remain in the U.K. through Brexit, citing family ties, work or a desire to stay and effect change at home. While few technologists interviewed offered optimistic outlooks of a post-Brexit British tech scene, many are determined to do what they can in its wake.
Curious to get some perspective from (British) Londoners and how they feel about this. Do they not feel cornered out of the market against the top 1% of global talent heading to London? Particularly in tech with insane recruiting procedures.
No one think of it in another way: they were originally talents in their home country and it is actually the recovery of the "Brain-Drain" of their home country...
Anecdotally I've heard about more people moving to uk from America than leaving uk for EU over the last few months.
Been there, moved out.
good quote from the comments:
Overlord_Dave • 11 minutes ago
Remember guys and gals, the plural of anecdote is not data
The thing is, I agree this article is low quality but the compound nature of brexit+snoopers charter+uncertainty with companies is certainly affecting the attractiveness of the country.
I'm British, I left to go work in Sweden for a couple years while my girlfriend finished her studies here, since I've been here we've had _significant_ challenges and erosions of rights and privacy in the UK, the EU (with all its warts) was investing much more in deprived areas of the country than the UK government was (or had done pre-EU).
It's bleak, there's a bigger country than just London (which currently carries almost the entire of the rest of the UK financially) and the companies that run there are fickle.
There is a self-fulfilling cycle that goes with London, companies go there because it's where the brains are. Brains go there because it's where the companies are.
If there is another place companies go, the brains will undoubtedly follow. Then who carries the UK?
-- Sorry, this turned into a rant, all I really wanted to say is:
Anecdatum is not data; but with enough of it, it can certainly paint a keen picture of the situation for many.
>>> If there is another place companies go, the brains will undoubtedly follow.
Companies want the brain to go there, the brains want the company there to go there. Circular dependency.
That's why there are only few tech hubs and they won't change.