Without the EU there would be no Angry Birds!

[VectraMan]

The article suggests that the EU allowed the Finland-based company behind Angry birds to recruit developers from around Europe. This is true. But it would be wrong to suggest that the EU was a requirement for this; as an alternative, the Finland national government could have allowed the company to do that recruitment from Europe, without any involvement with the EU. The only requirement being that Finland was not a member of the EU.

It's wrong to suggest the EU allowed this. Being in the EU gives every Finland-based company the right to hire whoever it wanted from anywhere in the EU, and those EU citizens had the right to apply for a job anywhere in the EU. That means not having to ask anyone, not least the EU, or worry about their ability to hold onto someone they might have invested time and effort in. No matter how you look at it that's very different from having to get support from your local government for permits or whatever.

Of course people can and always will be able to work in other countries, but giving companies the right to hire whoever they want is still much better. I used to work with an Australian (first person I ever interviewed in fact). Which was great; we liked him, he wanted to stay, but after 2 years he basically got kicked out of the country. Trying to keep him was more effort than a small business like ours could reasonably handle, so instead he went back to Australia and set up a remote office there with another couple of people. Jobs that could have been in Britain. Great work there Britain!

[vetran]

Even the one's who choose suicide should be more than a match for you performance...

no they wouldn't they would stay stiff!

[Mordac]

no they wouldn't they would stay stiff!

Stiffer than him, you mean...

[GJABS]

No matter how you look at it that's very different from having to get support from your local government for permits or whatever.

...

but giving companies the right to hire whoever they want is still much better.

It may be very different, but in my opinion it is better for local governments to control who can come in.
Companies will hire in people who are good for the company - this might not align with who is good for the country as a whole, taking into account the fact that the person will be consuming public services. For example the country as a whole does not benefit if the person coming in makes a pound profit for the company (generates tax revenue), but costs the welfare state a hundred times as much.

[BrilloPad]

Makes you wonder how Google and Amazon survive....

By paying almost no tax. Quite legally.

Branding needs to be made non tax deductible. On a prospective basis.

[VectraMan]

It may be very different, but in my opinion it is better for local governments to control who can come in.
Companies will hire in people who are good for the company - this might not align with who is good for the country as a whole, taking into account the fact that the person will be consuming public services. For example the country as a whole does not benefit if the person coming in makes a pound profit for the company (generates tax revenue), but costs the welfare state a hundred times as much.

If someone's getting a hundred times more in benefits than they generate by working then our society is fundamentally screwed whatever happens.

The best thing governments can do for business and industry is get out of the way. I'm sure most people here would agree. EU freedom of movement is probably the greatest example of that we have. Weird that so many here want to take choice away from business and give more power to the government.

[GJABS]

If someone's getting a hundred times more in benefits than they generate by working then our society is fundamentally screwed whatever happens.

The best thing governments can do for business and industry is get out of the way. I'm sure most people here would agree. EU freedom of movement is probably the greatest example of that we have. Weird that so many here want to take choice away from business and give more power to the government.

While the "hundred" figure is an exaggeration for effect, it is still the case that many people coming into the country will contribute less than they take, factoring in the whole of life (old age care). Therefore the country, led by the government, should be choosing who to have, for the overall benefit of the British people.

Yes it is good for governments to get out of the way of business and industry for those matters that business and industry are directory involved with. But it is not good for government to get out of the way of things directly influenced by welfare, pensions, and other things directly controlled by government. And since a major influence on decisions to immigrate to the UK is the availability of government benefits like the NHS, education and pensions etc, the government should be the entity controlling this, not businesses who have no direct involvement.