Hacker News Reader

>this article reveals that the two most popular destinations for UK families leaving are the USA and Australia - both countries with strict visa requirements and no automatic freedom of movement.

On a purely selfish level, speaking as an Australian/UK dual citizen who has an Australian wife who cannot live permanently with me in the UK without submitting to everything short of a rubber glove examination from UK immigration and paying substantial fees for the pleasure, I do hope this changes once the UK leaves the EU. Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK have a shared history, the same language, the same head of state, and similar levels of economic development so it would be nice if there were fewer barriers to moving between these countries.

Australia and NZ have freedom of movement and it would be great if more of the old empire could join us. Pretty sure plenty of brits would love to go live in Australia etc for a while without a bunch of paperwork.

As an Australian who has lived in the US and the EU I'd agree some sort of deal would be a really good idea.

However, actually, the US causes problems because the other Anglo-Saxon countries have much more generous welfare systems and Universal Health Care.

It would be easier between NZ, CA, AU & the UK. However, something could be worked out with the US by limiting access to welfare while allowing for work.

It's worth noting at this point that Australia welcomes migrants with open arms (excluding, for some bizarre reason, refugees). If you exclude city-states (like San Marino), the only western democracies with higher immigration rates are Norway and Spain (Canada is also neck-and-neck with our migration rate). In 2014, 28% of Australia's population was born overseas - if you exclude the British and the Kiwis, it's 21%. This compares to 14% from all sources for the US and 12% for the UK. Australia's population barely has a replacement birthrate, yet it has increased in population from 19M in 1999 to 24M this year - a 25% increase in 17 years, pretty much all due to inward migration. The #1 source of migrants for the past few years has been China. You're also 100% free to move to anywhere you want once you're inside the country, and there's no land travel to any other countries to make something like Schengen work anyway.

Painting Australia as difficult to migrate to is patent nonsense, given the actual numbers. Yes, there is a political problem with refugees at the moment, but we're absorbing non-refugee migrants faster than almost anyone else and have been for years.

The reason why the US and Australia are migration targets for the UK is that they are English-speaking countries with decent climates and economies. Anglos all over the world are monoglots and generally uninterested in learning other languages; it makes sense that they'd prefer to move somewhere that's nice to live and they speak the language.

> Painting Australia as difficult to migrate to is patent nonsense

From experience, it is difficult. When worked on this a few years ago there were only two options for moving to Australia from the UK.

One was skill-based employment, a points-based assessment scheme for which two-thirds of immigration slots are reserved. Applicants must be under 45 and meet the requirements of the Skilled Occupations List. I've worked in a compatible job for 20 years but didn't qualify because I didn't have a suitable university degree. Why that was relevant after two decades wasn't clear, but terminated my application.

The other option was inward-investment business migration but even that didn't give guarantees of residence, just 'possibility'.

Have you compared the process with that of other countries? I hear similar stories from folks looking to move to other wealthy, stable western countries.

I once had a friend that worked in American universities doing high end coding, supporting academic staff. It took him twenty years to get his residency. Western democracies in general will only take in younger people, because older people are a direct drain on the healthcare system (without having helped to fund it via taxes).

Australia is a popular destination, so they can pick and choose a bit I guess. I guess that makes it difficult to migrate to in terms of competition, but when you look at the overall numbers, there's huge amounts of migrants arriving in comparison to contemporary nations.

Switzerland is a good place to do business in Europe in part because it has access to the internal market.

Access to that common market has, to this point, required a commitment to the Four Freedoms, free movement of goods, services, people, and capital.

Are you suggesting the UK will be able to negotiate access to the common market without acceding to those four freedoms - something which has never happened before and considering the current EU stance of "hurry up and gtfo" seems quite unlikely.

Or are you suggesting the UK will leave Europe, but still allow free movement of people in order to retain access to the common market? Immigration control was given as the second most important factor by those who voted leave, that would be quite some turn-around.

Or, finally, I guess you could be suggesting that Britain will be a good place to do business in Europe without being a part of the common market.

So Boris has laid out his platform, and he has chosen option one, he claims Britain will retain access to the internal market while also putting an Australian style points based immigration system in place.

He also claims "EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU", which should worry observers, since he appears to be promising everyone a pony.

My guess is he expects to use the threat of an exit to negotiate some control over migration, and never to trigger article 50.

Is there any appetite for humouring Boris in Europe? Well Germany is, as ever, practically minded. France and others? They seem quite prepared to demand a pound of flesh.

It will be a wonderful magic trick if Boris, as laid out in his platform, can have everything he wants at no cost.

My point is immigration is not an on/off scenario.

The U.K. could easily negotiate a visa for Shenghen area countries with reciprocal rights, at different levels for work or travel or retirement.

And yes, where I think he UK could thrive is by positioning themselves as the place to do business without having to deal with the EU red tape directly. If London based financial services are in the right Timezone etc but are firewalled from EU banks and the ECB, then it can easily grow even more. I was there when the Euro started and it was seen as the beginning of the end, but it has grown a lot since then. I think having an independent central bank and currency has been a boon.

And the international language of business is going to be English for a long time yet.

Essentially, my argument is that any country which lowers the regulatory barriers to business will do better. The U.K. Has a chance to do that and undercut other European countries who will remain bound by the countless EU regs.

The options are pretty clear, but I'm not sure what exactly you are suggesting, is it:

"The UK will be able to negotiate access to the common market without acceding to those four freedoms"

It's quite possible some of the Remain crowd were more scared of the economic impacts of brexit than of unchecked immigration (which to be honest was an extremely short-sighted EU policy. Anything left unchecked or without controls will be exploited).

The ultimate irony will be, when the exit conditions are negotiated, if a non-restrictive immigration policy with the EU somehow still makes it.

It's nonsense that there is unchecked immigration. Far from it. See frontex ops in the Mediterranean sea for one of many cruel examples.

There is free movement of people _within_ the EU. But that's hardly headline at this point.