> 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...
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.
Personally I find the article does read a bit like scaremongering propaganda.
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.
> 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.
That said, I imagine a lot of skilled workers are going to reason differently than you and leave.
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.
Thanks for sharing!
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.
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.
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.
how is this even legal in UK.
1.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/britains-biggest-...
This may be the case. Brexit is the dumbest solution to that particular problem though.
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).
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.
This is particularly true when public services are stretched, and there is a chronic shortage of housing.
That is the perception, at least.
...and it may not. More brexit fear-mongering.
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.
Care to elaborate a bit on this? I'm genuinely interested.
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)
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...
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)
Some people moved because of these posts, so I hope my outreach has a positive net impact on the HN community.
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 know a few who have moved on too. Not many, but time will tell.
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 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
If the EU does collapse, I'll consider Canada.
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?
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?
> 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.
Overlord_Dave • 11 minutes ago
Remember guys and gals, the plural of anecdote is not data
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.
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.
