UK government considering a “cut-off date” for EU citizens’ rights to residency

Or why wouldn't they go in the slightly-less-richer, but culturally closer Spain or Italy? Especially since the weather is much nicer over there :)

But the article is not about people from hacker news, it's about any EU citizen.

I have friends and loved ones who moved here from the countries mentioned who contribute to this country infinitely more than a large number of native Brits. No one ever really talks about the human side of all of this.

But we will only know for sure in two years.

Anyway, I would have expected that there was a bigger rush up until the Brexit vote, when the British economy was very good and moving there seemed to be a safe bet (because it was in the EU and you could stay indefinitely).

I would have gone with:

   Theresa May to end EU citizens' rights to move to the UK

Historically (read: empirically, as demonstrated by the real world regardless of what theories think), there are two ways to go about this, both having their set of issues:

- Socializing to some extent, but States are bad bad bad at anything economics (and overspend, mismanage, etc.)

- Non-profit legal statuses, with the appropriate amount of tax exemption, incentives, etc.; but then you enter a world of non-competition which produces abysmally low returns (and even if nobody actually profits, we still need these entities to remain efficient).

I think the ad industry, regarding the press for instance, is just one of the factors motivating the above top/general principle; i.e. that profit-seeking is detrimental to some missions/goals. Nonetheless necessary for said missions to be conducted in the first place (quality journalism, for instance, requires suitable compensation).

I certainly don't pretend to know the answer but a few empirically-motivated ideas emerge as we see this century unfold with its specific attributes.

1 - The creation of a legal status between companies and States: a "Citizen layer" of sorts which shares goals with States (not for profit, on a mission for the public good) but is managed just like regular companies (including competition/anti-trust, regular hiring without elections). This should allow "bad seeds" to die just like bad banks, and the good ones (which would actually make profit, and in time lower costs/increase quality) to thrive.

2 - Giving a "universal wage" to a pre-defined subset of some professions (e.g. N journalists) so as to ensure they exist and don't have to worry about profit (but the competition between journalists remains; as an individual you still have to actually be employed by a news outlet to receive said wages, it's not a right but a finite subvention, it's just removing the burden for that news outlet to make profit to pay you). Obviously there's still competition between news outlets.

There are many, many issues with these ideas, especially drafted hastily like that, but I think these are avenues worth considering. To put a few buzzwords into it, 1 is the idea of crowd-sourcing most of States' work and putting the management back into citizen control instead of elected/officials which are usually not qualified. 2 is just extending the notion of universal income to domains that would be deemed as essential as food or shelter for a population, e.g. information services (press). 1 is generally a weakening of the State where it fails historically, towards a more realistic economically-savvy model, with the added benefit of empowering citizenry as a whole. 2 is conversely a slight re-balancing towards a little dose of 'privately owned communism' when things are indeed of common good or interest (such as information), but limited to money transfers (States don't run anything, they just allocate funds they previously used internally).

Clickbait is just one symptom among many of an unbalanced system (let's not even talk about the general intellectual level of public debate at a time when more people are educated than ever in human history). There's a much larger picture to consider if we are to make our societies more efficient (information being key to democracy, and beyond that to a 'smart', 'informed' population, able to build progress).

It's also not clear how how the ONS numbers account for dual citizenship, since their numbers all up exactly to 100%.

http://www.producebusinessuk.com/insight/insight-stories/201...

“UK citizens do not like to come and pick our crops and so we have to bring in workers from the EU; from Poland, Czech Republic and Bulgaria etc. They represent 95 percent of our workforce and without them we are absolutely sunk,” he said.

Swede living in London here. I've got exactly the same opinion.

Did the article? This is about a cutoff date to stop a wave of last minute immigrants. Nothing about expelling current ones. Don't let clickbait headlines make you angry.

Yes, I think you're allowed to stay.

EU citizens will be free to come right up until the UK exits the EU but those that came after said date will likely have to apply for visas. Those before will keep residency.

To put it another way: if working in London, New York and San Francisco are going to be equally difficult to arrange, I'm not sure why anyone would prefer London. Housing is as expensive as NY or SF, yet wages are much lower. The weather isn't great either.

lol, no it isn't - legal immigration from the EU is the main pillar of Brexit: "Stop all these people coming to live in our country."

1. You want to come work in London? Fill out all these forms, pay fees, prove that you're going to be useful, and we might allow you to stay

2. You want to come work in Berlin? Sure, come along.

Do you see how the latter makes you feel much more welcome?