Reasons the British Public voted for Brexit include: the UK’s contributions to the EU; regulation that British businesses have to comply with; and most importantly, the influx of migrants.
The British Public, understandably, react unfavourably to:
hearing languages other than English being spoken widely; foreign styles of
dress, e.g. headscarves and burkas; and behaviour not aligned with British
cultural norms.
But, much of the migration that evokes unfavourable
reaction, originates from sources other than the EU. ‘Outsourcing’, which has increased
greatly, partly as a result of privatisation of formerly state-owned industries,
is an important source of immigration.
Outsourcing companies can offer competitive pricing on the
basis of employees on low pay recruited from India, Pakistan, and African
countries. Such employees are allowed visas almost as a matter of course. These
employees are prepared to work on very low pay for five years because at the
end of the five-year period, they can apply for ‘Permanent Residence’. After
they receive permanent residence, they leave their low paying employers (who
provide the outsourced service) and get a job at normal pay. The outsourcing
companies then replace them with further low paid employees.
Outsourcing of visa application handling in British
Embassies and High Commissions overseas is another source migration. There are
stories that, whilst applications directly via the High Commission / Embassy,
who sends the documents to an outsourcing company (sometimes in a different
country) can result in a long delay and possibly refusal, going via a travel
agent and paying say 10 to 20 times the standard fee, results in visas (and it
is said even British Passports) being issued rapidly. The explanation for this
is thought to be that the travel agent offers inducements to the visa
application outsourcing company which results in their ignoring normal
procedures / checks. Moreover, where the visa application goes directly to the
outsourcing company, the company tends to be overly punctilious and delays
responding (in the hope that applicants will go via a travel agent who will
offer inducements).
An important benefit of being in the EU is that financial
firms located in the UK can ‘passport’ i.e. offer their services in the EU
without the need for regulatory authorisation (which can be a costly and
lengthy process) in those countries. Will this survive Brexit? Moreover, by
being in the EU we can influence regulation to take account of the different
structure and wider range and scope of financial services in the UK. Hitherto
this has encouraged overseas financial firms wishing to trade in Europe, to
locate in London to take advantage of: the trained workforce: presence of the
world’s leading banks, investment firms and insurance companies; and the
infrastructure that provides a full range of services and facilitates financial
innovation; and then passport into other EU countries.
To ensure that as many of the benefits remain, perhaps we
should make some technical advisors available to the European Commission, so
that proposals reaching the Parliament / officials will take account of the
UK’s needs including the of nature businesses such as financial services. When
I was an advisor to the European Commission, I was able to explain the practical
aspects of the greater range and scope of financial services in the UK and
ensure that Directives took account of this. Subsequent lack of engagement has resulted
in EU regulation such as CoREP which requires even three-man proprietary
trading firms to fill in the same 27 spreadsheets worth of data (about 25000
items) that the major banks have to and send the returns to the European
Banking Authority.
Ideally though, have a second, fully informed vote and
continue as a member of the EU.
