Tech biz bosses tell El Reg a Brexit will lead to a UK Techxit Immigration is one of the main concerns for advocates of Brexit. Some IT firms from Britain and abroad who we spoke to share this concern – but in the other direction. One UK tech firm has told The Register it could be forced to leave the country if Britain votes to leave the European Union on June 23 – a Techxit, if you will …
“If I was limited in the people I could bring into the business, yes, we’d have to seriously consider where our home was,” Lask told us."
Well maybe after we've pulled up the drawbridge and barricaded the beaches , if you ask Big Dave nicely he might let your guy in if you vouch for his job
Well not quite true, unless you think a few hundred extra people represents a "run" on passport applications, in the face of the net influx of 300k economic migrants we've received into the UK from the EU (mainly) who obviously aren't worried about a Brexit. ...and by the way the original article is from the Guardian not known as a Brexit supporter.
"Between 2014 and 2015, the number of adults born in England, Scotland or Wales applying for their first Irish passport on the basis of having an Irish-born grandparent increased by more than 33%, from 379 to 507. Applications from those with one or more Irish parent rose by 11% in the same period, from 3,376 to 3,736. In the previous year, the total applying in both categories fell slightly."
Given that only British born citizens with an Irish parent or grand parent can apply for an Irish passport, it is far, far, more likely that the numbers have been driven by the flood of Irish Citizens who came over to the UK from the 1930s onwards, and continue to come over, especially after the bubble that built up around the Celtic Tiger Myth burst in a busted flush, and who have had children in the UK.
Yes. This stuff is utterly illogical.
Here's where it gets silly:
Others reckon leaving the common labour market would slow their ability to move rapidly against rivals and to bring on talent in a competitive field.
The reason? The end to freedom of movement that being a member state of the EU has provided.
Why's this silly? Because the EU freedom of movement makes the UK implement harsher controls on immigration from outside the EU. Granted it's a matter of personal opinion if those controls have to be there, but there they are. This means it's more difficult to recruit tech talent from the US, from India, from China, from Japan (the list goes on).
See the problem here? Germany isn't exactly known for being forwards thinking when it comes to the digital economy so what good is being in the EU doing any of this - the answer of course is the UK's tech industry is being actively harmed by it.
And yes not for nothing but being outside the EU doesn't mean people can't be recruited from in the EU, just they'd have to justify their employment in the UK - that shouldn't be difficult; although I personally know a lot of well qualified experienced people who can't get tech jobs because they have to compete on pay with people who are less qualified and less experienced who aren't from the UK who will take nonsense wages..
"I'm a foreigner and I don't live in the UK, so I don't know, but are you sure about the difficulty when recruiting talent from India and China (well, Hong-Kong)? Isn't there a rule about Commonwealth citizens that Britain freely admits?"
What, you mean discrimination?
Yes, very probably. It's a core British value :/
"Isn't there a rule about Commonwealth citizens that Britain freely admits?"
Britain has been tearing that rule up for years. The barriers are now significantly higher than even a decade ago.
Commonwealth countries trading with Britain got well and truly shafted when it joined the common market. They'll be looking for payback if Britain has to go to them cap-in-hand for trade as it did in 1939-1949.
Re "[you] know [many good] people who can't get tech jobs because they have to compete on pay with people who are less qualified and less experienced who aren't from the UK who will take nonsense wages.."
You are talking about, effectively, one place: India. And from my observations in many I.T. shops around the U.K., it is trivially simple for any number of Indian onshorers to migrate to the U.K., where their numbers dwarf all other nationalities put together; in particular these numbers must be over ten times that of EU citizens working here. I can think of four U.K. financial institutions where I was literally one of perhaps only two or three non-Indian techies on the floor. It is simply wrong to suggest that intra-EU migration is some sort of flood. But there is obviously an uncontrolled flood from India, and it has nothing to do with the EU, but simply with HMG's inability to enforce its own laws.
This post has been deleted by its author
As an 'out-er' I don't feel the issue of immigration is about 'stopping foreigners', and those that characterise the debate that way are only doing so to make a complex issue seem reassuringly simple.
The case for coming out seems to me about one of self determination and the democratic process. Under our own control, we would be in a position to decide how immigration should work in our specific case. I would hope that the democratic outcome would still allow for compassionate treatment of disposed people, and expect that it would also positively encourage immigration by much needed skilled workers.
The point here is that 'out' is not about pulling up the drawbridge or some xenophobic reaction to foreign nations. Britain outside the EU would still have the same deeply multicultural and broad political mix of people, and a democratically elected government that on the whole reflects the population. The discussion is not (and should not) be treated as though it were magically politically polarised.
> You mean under the control of the incompetent buffoons in Westminster. I doubt very much the control will extend to the rest of us.
Very true, but I'd rather the incompetent buffoons be local ones who you might occasionally look in the eye. There's no evidence that their European equivalents are any less incompetent or self-serving.
@gv
"You mean under the control of the incompetent buffoons in Westminster. I doubt very much the control will extend to the rest of us."
Part of the case for remaining is to ensure those buffoons have less and less power. They do not represent UK citizens, only their own interests.
>> "I have a wife and children. Unless you let them in too, I'm not coming."
>> That usually happens - someone comes in on a visa and their family comes with them. I know people >> who've moved from the US and the whole family is allowed in.
And frankly, that's the way it should be now. If a rich banker from France, or a builder from Bulgaria comes in, they should be allowed to bring their families and they should have access to health care and schools as long as they pay their tax, which is what pays for those things. In other words, they're a contributor, as most of them are. This shouldn't extend to benefits: if you're worried about losing your job, get insurance.
Rather than actually fixing the problem, which Cameron has failed to do along with years of sending Eurosceptic morons to the European parliament, the eurosceptics think that getting rid of the jobs altogether is a better option.
My gran thinks that voting UKIP will force the Pakistanis to go home. FFS.
Given the choice between a country where they can move to easily by just.... moving, and a country where they have to go through all sorts of bureaucracy, require the sponsorship of the employer (thereby forcing them to stay with that employer unless they can find another 'sponsor'), why would they choose the latter given similar opportunities?
Isnt that the reason most of the "out-ers" want out? If theres freedom of movement all our less well off neighbours will come over here and work for the opportunities they never had at home, thereby putting us slackers, who expect ridiculous wages, out of work.
It means the UK can be a bit more selective about who it lets in and who gets thrown out, and the terms under which they're allowed in. All the fuss about benefit eligibility would go away, the UK could simply say "you can come in but you don't get any government money for ten years". That's pretty much how the US system works - if you arrive on a work visa then you have to leave the country if the job goes away (or transfer your visa to another job PDQ) and if you're on a permanent resident visa then you're not suppose to claim government benefits until you've contributed 40 quarters (i.e. ten years) to the social security system.
At the moment it's all scaremongering - there is no reason why the UK can't agree a streamlined visa process for members of other EU states in return for the same going the other way. If the EU wants to slam the door then does the UK really want to be part of the club, and if the UK wants to slam the door, the EU is probably better off saying "bye".
There is a very good reason why a 'streamlined visa process' is not going to happen, at least not bilaterally. It is either the free movement of people or the standard visa process. The EU itself doesn't have much to say about it - it is each and every one of the member states that decides it, as it is a matter of control of national borders.
Agreed. I think Worstalls article a while back was pretty persuasive to me on what would happen, economically: We'll loose some things, we'll gain some things. Besides, I don't think that the businesses within the EU would like to loose the UK as a customer regardless of what it chooses and vice-versa. It makes no sense for the EU to engage in spiteful acts and petty revenge and sounds like, to use a Cliche, cutting off your nose to spite your face.
However, in the end, I'm voting leave not for economic arguments, not for immigration, but simply because of this report. It spells out, in remarkably simple language, what the EU's long term goal is and what's planned: So, for me, the question on Brexit becomes: Do you want to be part of the The United States of Europe? And for me, the answer is No.
It is a pity that Cameron just farted about Grandstanding his way around the EU. It's a real shame he never even pushed for and secured real reform. He had the opportunity to implement some sort of, for example, Pick and Choose model for the EU (A bit of that, but none of that) but ended up fiddling in areas that will have no impact. I'm pretty sure he'll find out that emergency break is made of blancmange!
One thing is for certain, there'll be a bloodbath in the Conservatives after the referendum regardless of the outcome: Leave will result in those backing remain to be given the boot. Remain will result in the local Conservative Associations deselection of MP's especially those who got in on EUsceptic tickets.
" It makes no sense for the EU to engage in spiteful acts and petty revenge and sounds like, to use a Cliche, cutting off your nose to spite your face."
pour encourager les autres.
There must be some sanction imposed for leaving. Applying a sanction will encourage EU consumers and businesses to purchase whatever it is they want from somewhere else that has remained in the EU.
Leaving hurts us more than 'them'. You can't walk out of a party and yet expect to continue to enjoy the party from the outside. If you want to enjoy the party, stay at the party, even if you do find the host eccentric and some of the nibbles and music not to your taste. The sign of a successful party is how much everyone enjoys it, it's not about how everything is tailored exactly to what you personally want.
Leaving hurts us more than 'them'.
That depends on how you slice it. Ireland would suffer massively if the EU chose the nuclear option. It would be so bad for their economy that they'd have an appalling choice of quite the Euro and leave with us and suffer a huge recession, or stay in and suffer a possibly huger recession for longer.
We have now overtaken France as Germany's number two export destination (after the US). While we export a lot less to Germany. We have a trade suprlus on our non EU trade, and trade surplus on our services industry (the second biggest in the world after the US), but a trade deficit with the EU because they sell their goods to us but keep the trade barriers up against our more competitive services. Also because the Euro is still in depression due to pisspoor policymaking, and so their imports of goods have collapsed, while they try to export their way out of trouble.
Before the crash 60% or our exports were to the EU. Now it's down to something like 42%. Imagine how much faster our recovery would have been, had the rest of the EU tried a vaguely competent economic policy... Osborne made spending cuts (well actually lowered the rate of increase), partially offset by QE and low interest rates. The Eurozone made much deeper cuts (27% in Greece!!!!!!!), and the ECB actually raised interest rates in 2009! And didn't start QE until last year.
As for the argument that they'll punish us if we leave, there is certainly a risk of that. But I'd argue that with friends like that, who needs enemies. Either they're our allies or they're not. Germany in recent years have shown a distressing tendency to fuck over their supposed allies for short-term gain. Such as opposing the Southstream gas pipeline to Russia, on the legitimate grounds that it was a way to screw over Ukraine and divide the EU attempts at a commone energy market. Then secretly did a deal behind the rest of the EU's back to expand Nordstream (a competing pipeline that just so happens to screw over both Ukraine and Poland). Not to mention Germany's treatment of Greece, Cyprus and to a lesser exrtent Spain and Ireland. And Germany's continuing flouting of Eurozone rules by running a 7% trade surplus, while preaching loudly to everyone else about sticking to the fiscal rules. Not to mention the continuing attempt to make a unilateral German Syrian refugee policy for the whole of the EU.
I expect tough negotiations in peoples' own national interests. That means we'll lose things as well as winning some. And it'll be unpredictable. If they try to fuck us over - they risk a recession that will finally destroy the Eurozone, and possibly the EU. And an attempt to destroy say our car industry, does as much damage to their own, given how integrated it all is. Same with aerospace, pharmaceuticals, even to some extent banking and insurance.
Ireland already has a series of bilateral trade and free-movement treaties with the United Kingdom that predate the EEC, and many newer ones (e.g. Good Friday agreement) that are not conditional on EU membership. Brexit won't affect these. The fact that neither Ireland nor the UK has a land frontier with any other EU member would make it possible for the UK and Ireland to continue to honour those treaty obligations even if one nation left the EU.
The economic effects are generally considered to be neutral to Ireland overall: negative in the short term, but potentially positive long term as the UK effectively removes itself from the EU foreign direct investment competition. Short term, an exit will increase the administrative cost of trade, but not necessarily its volume. Ireland's main exports to the UK are in sectors where sourcing a non-EU substitute would be problematical (in order of revenue, those are: Pharmaceuticals/cosmetics/ingredients, then food/dairy, then plastics/machinery/electronics - only the last of these is easily sourced from other countries). Plus, aside from the big pharmaceuticals companies, these aren't big deals, but thousands of small to medium sized companies trading with each other.
Longer term, Ireland has a small possibly of benefitting economically from a Brexit, particularly in Financial Services, although not anywhere near as much as a Brexit would benefit Frankfurt. A City of London that's outside the EU loses one of its big advantages to external investors.
Now tho the "Stay" campaign's scare-tactics: In the event of an exit, the UK cannot rescind residency to EU citizens already in the UK - doing so is against international law, it is a bureaucratic nightmare (especially in a country like the UK that does not track the residency of EU passport holders) and it would also cripple the country's economy for a generation. Many could choose to leave, but they couldn't be forced to.
Ireland has a good lesson to give here on the dangers of sending people "back where they came from": in the 1930s, many of the Anglo-Irish were "encouraged" (often violently) to leave the newly-independent Ireland, and it resulted in a country whose economy was on par with Denmark's in 1922 falling to the bottom of the European league table by the late 1950s. (Northern Ireland's status as the UK's economic basket-case is similarly founded on the misguided belief that national identity is somehow related to effectiveness as a worker)
"Leaving hurts us more than 'them'"
It depends who the "them" is. Not the citizens in the EU. The EU is in a lot of trouble - the Eurozone is in depression and right-wing/fascist parties are on the rise.
If Brexit makes halts the march to an "ever closer union" and makes it more democratic and accountable, then the UK leaving will have done the other 27 members a massive favour. Britain has saved Europe from fascism before.
Totally agreed - but I don't think you have gone far enough. There is no good outcome. Regardless of whether the UK stays in or goes out, there is going to be backlash from the EU and many other groups - NATO and the Council of Europe, for instance. What the Little Englanders have done is prove that "With friends like Britain, who needs enemies?" No-one is going to trust a country that, at a time of integration around the world, wants to rely on past glories, instead of looking to the future and co-operating. The country is going to have to beg and plead for everything, which is a poor negotiating position. Even becoming the 51st state of the USA, which is the best that can be hoped for in the next 20 years following an exit from the EU, will involve great loss at the negotiating table.
I cannot vote (reason obvious from my name) and even though I benefited from EU movement rules I would now advice (to anyone interested in my opinion) to leave. The reason is simple - EU is driven by bureaucrats and, as we know, the main purpose of bureaucracy is to extend. EU bureaucrats are particularly dangerous, since they also motivated by the ideology of States of Europe - which makes them no different from apparatchiks. This will not change for EU no matter what UK votes for - that is in case of "remain" win, UK won't be able to reverse the tide. The only choice is - does UK want to be a part of this, or pursue a different treaty.
In case of "leave" vote win, I would think that EEA is actually realistic choice, since in the 2 years after the vote where will no time to prepare and sign another treaty, and EU countries will want to continue trading with the UK under any rules.
"Nasty party turns nasty on itself.
Excellent news - something to look forward to for the summer."
Yeah, that's what we really need - a Tory party engaged in a bitter civil war, a Labour party led by a useless, unelectable leader, and a LibDem party nobody wants to vote for any more.
May you live in interesting times.
UK will almost certainly negotiate to join the European Economic Area
When asked, the prominent members of the "Vote Leave" campaign have stated specifically that they don't want either the EEA or EFTA model of EU association but some as-yet-undefined model that offers free trade benefits without the obligations that presently go witth them.
The entire case of "Vote Leave" is predicated on there being an alternative in which there is freedom of movement for goods and services but not for people.
I'm not proferring an opinion about whether the UK population would prefer EFTA or EEA to the EU, or as to whether in practice these would be the only practical alternatives, but "Vote Leave" wants no part of any of them.
I'm tending towards supporting Brexit, but haven't decided. My anger over the appalling treatment of Greece and Cyprus, and belief in democracy are currently trumping the desire for an easy life. I still believe we'll vote to stay in, so hope it's a close vote or we might suffer political revenge for staying - which is a minor threat also if we leave. There are some things that annoy me about the EU, some that are good, and bits in between. But I'd say it's almost a nailed on certainty that little will change in the short-term, whichever way we vote. Unless common sense does break down, and everyone decides to start a trade war. There was a perfectly acceptable compromise deal to do on Greece (and particularly Cyprus), and yet Merkel's government, and others, chose to posture and grandstand and totally fuck over their economies, to no purpose.
I'd love us to have a free trade deal, with limited freedom of movement much more under our own control. And the EU to complete the single market in services (France, Germany and Italy in particular were much more eager to nail down free trade in goods, where we have a trade deficit with the EU, and have continually blocked/slowed freedom for services exports back to them from us). I'd also like to have seen some sort of associate membership for Turkey to tie them in as a democratic ally (looks too late for that now), and an end to the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. Plus the EU to either get serious about a common security/diplomatic policy, or leave it to NATO. Sadly a bunch of those are mutually exclusive, and not all available if we leave, or if we stay.
Even if the rest of the EU were willing to grant us our fantasy, perfect deal, it'll take years. I read a piece on this that said the EU takes 4-10 years to negotiate a trade deal, the more complex the longer. And we're wanting something incredibly complex in a part of the EU that is still mostly done by unanimous voting - so if you don't get everyone on board, it gets vetoed. And there's going to be some natural resentment that we've buggered off, and that we're forcing hard negotiations on governments that they didn't want.
Additionally, the civil service have been more europhile than the politicians in every government except early Blair and Heath. And they're doing the negotiating.
So our choice is leave the EU without much of a trade deal, and suffer tariffs and discocation of trade while we slowly grind through sorting it out. Or do a deal where we do a quick and dirty shift from EU members to EFTA or EEA (there are technical differences which always confuse the hell out of me) - with the intent to slowly negotiate a few changes. Presumably once out of the EU we can discriminate on benefits against EU citizens, even though they get access to the country to work, which is a better balance than we have now. But while the Eurozone is so utterly fucked, we're going to get skilled migration from the EU, as well as unskilled, and short of deploying the army to the coasts and introducing ID cards, that's unstoppable anyway.
" Brexit is basically an exit from the farming and fisheries part of EU law, and everything else will stay pretty much the same as now..."
That is delusional thinking. Have you any idea how hard and long Switzerland had to negotiate to get those conditions? Don't you realise that it costs them a lot of money, that they had to change many national laws to match decisions in Brussels over which they have zero influence, and that they are now likely to lose most of it anyway because of knob-headed right-wing anti-immgration bigots?
If you get your way and Brexit occurs, be prepared for the Dark Ages.
Don't for get we get Boris as PM. IMHO, Call me 'Dave' will resign as soon at the vote OUT is announced as the winner. Boris will get what he craves and that is to be PM. Voting No is just about the only way he could ever become PM.
Please stop the world, I wanna get off (or at least out of anywhere run by Citizen Boris).
IMHO, he would be almost as bad as the current leader of the Labor party would be were he to become PM.
YMMV and probably will.
But, Brexit is basically the finger to any EU citizen living and paying taxes in the UK. That includes mid and high-earners too, remember.
After 20 years in the UK, if Brexit happens, I'll reluctantly pack up the family and leave.
I don't know the size of this effect, but you may want think about which nationalities you want to replace the gap.
But, Brexit is basically the finger to any EU citizen living and paying taxes in the UK
I count in their number and do not understand where did you get that idea from. I also do not understand why, even if true, that would actually matter - do you want to play on English feelings "I hate to be considered rude" ? If you have a family here, especially children who do not know much about living in other country, you should apply for British citizenship for their sake. No matter whether UK stays in EU or not.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
