[djmobley]

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.

[iNerdier]

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?

[dominotw]

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-...

[djmobley]

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?

[barrkel]

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?

[samsonradu]

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.

[vorotato]

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.

[vorotato]

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.

[djmobley]

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.

[vorotato]

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...

[frostburg]

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.

[djmobley]

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?

[frostburg]

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.

[ue_]

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.

[barrkel]

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.

[gonvaled]

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.

[djmobley]

They are engaged in a voluntary exchange of labor for remuneration.

Nobody is compelling them to work. They are not slaves.

[frostburg]

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.

[mdekkers]

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.

[jerf]

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).

[jacquesm]

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.

[CaptainZapp]

  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?

[jerf]

"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.

[kuschku]

> 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.

[jerf]

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.

[barrkel]

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.

[aembleton]

What would be a better solution?

[nl]

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.

[lurker456]

it's mostly there to have a bargaining chip in the negotiations with the EU.

[douche]

So, they are asking businesses to pony up the equivalent of one Starbucks coffee per day for skilled immigrants? The horror!

[lostboys67]

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

[djmobley]

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.

[d4rti]

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.