A 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.
> 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.
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'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.
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.
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.
That's the wishful thinking so much projected by the brexiteers. And I believe they're very wrong.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The EU chose to not make solutions available and stuck it into a "take it or leave it" basket.
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.
So I'm really curious: What, do you suggest, should the EU have offered?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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 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.
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)
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.