Recruiting from the EU in the event of No Deal

Hi all, Happy new year! 

Has anyone seen any definitive guidance from the government about what the position will be for recruiting from EU Countries if there is no Brexit deal? I had been working on the assumption that there would be a lengthy transition period where free movement rules would essentially continue as before. It now seems that No Deal is becoming increasingly likely, as it appears that there has been no movement from either side on the Withdrawal Agreement. Will I be able to recruit from the EU post 30th March if there is No Deal? Will EU applicants need to apply for a visa/work permit and be treated the same as other 3rd country citizens?

  • In reply to Dermot John Cole:

    I read a report from an anonymous civil servant that No Deal planning is actually well-advanced and it is part of the Government's scare tactics to pretend that it isn't:


    The Port of Calais has been preparing for No Deal for a year to keep the lorries rolling:


    It would be a gross dereliction of duty for the government to call a referendum, vote to trigger Article 50 and then do no planning. Little deals are being done on medicine, flights, driving licenses etc. I suspect that it will be the 'little people' on the ground who will make Brexit work.
  • In reply to Dermot John Cole:

    As far as I can see, the EU has conceded absolutely nothing in these 'negotiations' and we have conceded everything. The EU has a £90 billion surplus in goods with us. They will be hit harder by tariffs than we would. Our economy is based around services. If there is 'friction' at the borders and e.g. lorry-loads of Spanish tomatoes are delayed at Calais, who is going to suffer the most? The EU needs our trade, our money, our fishing waters, our defence and security co-operation and access to our jobs market. Sadly, we have a government which doesn't want to leave and hence doesn't want to use these points to our advantage.
  • In reply to Daniel:


    What right does someone have to negotiate an exit? its our choice and decision, so why would anyone concede? Are you clear on what we have asked for and not got?

    I fear that we are straying off topic, but sticking to the original thread, we employ significantly more Europeans than Europeans employ British people. We have made precisely no concessions, just asked for things. The fact remains that if any country can't send its people or goods to us economically, they'll send them somewhere else - probably to one of the 27 countries that they have free movement of goods and people to. To imagine that we are propping up other economies is fallacy.

    Unemployment rate for European immigrants is 1/4 of the UK indigenous population. Our economy is, as has been the case for 60 years, propped up by unskilled foreign labour. Even the UK government concedes that we have huge shortages in both skilled and unskilled roles, with a ready market available 22 miles away, and we are cutting of the supply. As I stated before, of course we may have a system to allow entry for workers, but our attractiveness - economically and emotionally - will be permanently diminished. The jobs drain has already begun and will only get worse.
  • In reply to Daniel:

    An awful lot of political points there Daniel for someone who wanted to avoid politics :-) :-)
  • In reply to Keith:

    I think I'll just shut up now...
  • In reply to Daniel:

    I am a little wary of this thread. It was started by Daniel who was asking what appeared to be a genuine question about recruitment. It then becomes apparent that he supports Brexit quite strongly (in which case i am unsure why he is asking the question as surely no-one with any sense vote for something without knowing what the implications were). Then if anyone suggests that Brexit may not be a good idea he then criticizes people for making political points, before quoting from the Express as if it is a reliable source of information!

    I think this thread should be deleted really as it is clear now that Daniel's original question wasn't genuine
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    15 Jan, 2019 10:09

    In reply to Teresa:

    I think if you read the first page of this thread all contributors pretty much avoid the politics of the actual Brexit vote. I think Daniel's opening question was genuine, so I'm not going to delete the thread. People can choose whether or not to add to the debate... but I'd prefer we didn't stray too far from the original question. Maybe that horse has bolted ;)
  • In reply to Teresa:

    Teresa, I started this thread with the intention of asking if the CIPD or any HR colleagues have any information on what the government is proposing on recruitment post-Brexit. I deliberately avoided making any comments on the rights and wrongs of Brexit. I then had two contributors choose to make anti-Brexit comments, which was not the intention of the post. I find it difficult not to respond when people are making points which I disagree with, especially when they are making the usual lazy assumptions that Brexiteers (myself included) are all stupid and racist.

    I voted knowing that it would mean leaving fully the EU. It is then for the government to work out the logistics of making that happen (they called the referendum and voted to trigger article 50). So far they have signally failed to do that.

    However, this is not a political blog, and I will make no further comments on this thread and would suggest that we leave it here. I don't doubt that the CIPD will update us when there is any information to be shared .
  • In reply to Daniel:

    Time to close.

    Daniel - no-one called you either stupid or racist - that is fake news and an ad hominem attack and you should apologise. You are playing the man, and not the ball. Your questions was answered with the same level of frustration about the process as you, and moderators confirm that the answers were not partisan. Only one person was.
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    15 Jan, 2019 11:57

    In reply to Daniel:

    Let's leave it there and I - or - will post updates as we release them.
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    15 Jan, 2019 11:59

    In reply to Dermot John Cole:

    Let's call it 'quits'. In my experience, asking for apologies never satisfies either party/parties (and more work for me). Let's move on (see my post above).
  • Yes , all, I will update. Up until this point actually, I thought we were having good, civil dialogue.
  • In reply to Dermot John Cole:

    Dermot, I think if you read the posts of yourself and the other two commentators who chose to make this a political discussion you will see the phrases such as "shameful, destructive, divisive, xenophobic, jingoistic" etc etc. We can all agree that the process has been badly managed by the government, but smearing everyone who voted to Leave in these terms is this reason why politics has become so "divisive."

    Anyway, I think we are done here so I bid you good day!
  • In reply to Steve Bridger:

    Accepting your suggestion Steve, and also having said I had no further comment to make, I believe I do have a right (and responsibility) to reply to Daniel's last, since it was I who used the term "xenophobic" he has chosen to interpret as an accusation of racism by him.

    Not so.

    While I did to a degree express my personal view on the value of Brexit, my comments related to the factual history and current quality of debate of the process, and the woeful chaos in our leadership it represents, not to any given political view or possible outcome. (as I in fact stated, several times). In particular I did NOT refer to Daniel as xenophobic (or at all) but rather to the stance taken Nationally by our politicians and spokespersons: Both those in the house and outside it.  I also defy anyone to suggest that the overall thrust of many of the arguments proposed for Brexit has not reflected a powerful undercurrent of racism (which in fact is only one possible outcome of xenophobia, and is not synonymous with it).

    I closed my remarks by specifically stating that I respected others had different views from mine and I strongly resent the implication that anything I said alleged racism or stupidity by any individual.

    One does not need to be racist or stupid to be wrong: (As others may believe me to be).


  • In reply to Daniel:

    I did not use any of those terms. I did not smear anyone. I did not - specifically not - mention politicians, parties or either side of the leave debate in any terms. I did not say whether I voted to leave or remain, I discussed the issue(s) you presented. You chose to start a political debate, then took umbrage at dissenting opinions to your own.