
Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit - okket
http://news.sky.com/story/japans-unprecedented-warning-to-uk-over-brexit-10564585
======
alva
"With regard to unskilled workers, Japanese businesses rely on inexpensive
labour from Eastern Europe in the manufacturing and agricultural industries in
the UK"

What a hypocritical demand from the Japanese. They have one of the strictest
set of immigration policies in the world, largely for the sake of national
homogeneity at the expensive of their economy. They believe that is a
worthwhile sacrifice for them, why not us?

~~~
kalleboo
> They have one of the strictest set of immigration policies in the world

[citation needed]

My experience is that Japan has very permissive immigration for skilled labor
(anyone with a college degree) or social ties (marriage). Far more so than
e.g. the USA or Europe. They just don't have a green card lottery for
unskilled labor (like the US) or open borders for refugees (like Europe).

~~~
alva
The numbers speak for themselves

[http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/1431-02.htm](http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/1431-02.htm)
Section 2-14

[http://www.dir.co.jp/english/research/report/others/20150529...](http://www.dir.co.jp/english/research/report/others/20150529_009776.pdf)

But you are right, I should have said first-world countries, I am not familiar
with developing countries policies. Compared to the US and Europe, Japan's
immigration policy is far stricter (and sensible as you state for skilled
labour) and a significant driver is a desire for homogeneity.

A large number of those in support of Brexit wish to have a similar approach.
Very supportive of high-skilled immigration, against extremely high low-
skilled immigration.

~~~
monk_e_boy
> A large number of those in support of Brexit wish to have a similar
> approach.

They wanted control. The EU didn't allow that and there was no negotiation
about it.

~~~
NetStrikeForce
Control as an euphemism for restriction of free movement for xenophobic
reasons.

It was discussed a hundred times (and your answer shows partly why Brexit won:
the message didn't get there) that the UK is not in Schengen (hence they
control their borders) and can stop and/or kick out any EU nationals that are
a security issue or a burden to the system. Other countries have exercised
this right previously (Spaniards kicked out of Belgium, English hooligans
threatened to be kicked out of France during the last Eurocup, etc).

The only reason to kick foreigners people think of when they talk about
control is fear. They fear foreigners. That's what "the EU didn't let them".

------
hackuser
People supporting bad policies like to say there are no bad consequences.

You hear this about Brexit, climate change, bankrupting the government,
violence and war, etc. It's the same rhetorical tool used for a lot of
propaganda: You can lie in a moment; it takes hours or days for people to
gather the evidence to disprove it.

(To disarm this propaganda: It's easy to construct nonsense that sounds
plausible - even to you, smart person; don't let your ego be your weakness -
and professionals make a study and art of it. Don't take anything seriously
unless it has serious evidence and research behind it in the first place; the
first claim has the burden of proof. Also, notice that their real argument is
in the unspoken assumptions behind it, how the issue is defined and framed.)

Here's why I think it works: Most policy consequences are difficult to notice
if you are uninformed. You can't know nationwide unemployment, GDP growth, or
climate change by looking around (with some exceptions). Western economies and
societies are huge and complex; often changes are subtle and slow; often they
affect one set of people - probably not you - more than another set of people.
Finally, in an environment that complex, it's hard to provably connect
outcomes to actions (is that hurricane due to climate change? did people get
cancer because of the factory's carcinogen or because of bad luck?), and the
propagandists can pump out enough lies to raise doubts in people's minds (look
up "FUD").

~~~
monk_e_boy
Most people I talked to were well informed. I think a lot of people were happy
to stick it to big business, most of who pay less tax than a local chippy.

We felt Brexit was about control, we wanted more of it. When the USA told us
off for wanting more freedom it felt a little weird... but, but, you're the
land of the free. We just want to be able to control immigration. We want
control from Brussels.

~~~
helthanatos
I am extremely uninformed about Brexit (because I live in the US and don't
have any connection to the UK or EU and don't care to read possibly false
information regarding it.) So, in my simplistic and limited view on Brexit, I
support it as it looks to be more freeing than being a part of the EU. ((Also,
I tend to find that those currently in control of the US want to limit
personal freedoms and grow government.))

~~~
hackuser
> it looks to be more freeing

There are many other factors, and it depends on what you mean by "freeing".
Political power, like energy and matter, is generally conserved; the question
is, who controls it.

* The ethical, generally accepted solution is for the people to control political power, via democratic government. (Undoubtedly it's very imperfect, but that's inevitable for every large human institution.)

* When you reduce government control of political power, you usually simply transfer it to someone else and often that's not 'the people'. Lacking a systematic, rules-based way to control and express that power, it often becomes might makes right, which dis-empowers most people.

* As a simple example: Less regulation by government often shifts power to big business; most consumers lose power: Government is responsive to them, and regulations often empower consumers.

* Regarding Brexit, intra-European issues and power won't go away. If there is no EU, who determines trade rules? Border laws? Security issues? The fair way to do it is to take a vote. Sans the EU, it's might makes right. We've seen how that works out in Europe (and everywhere else), and in fact the EU was created to prevent a repeat of those scenarios. Now the UK is essentially refusing to respect the votes of their neighbors and will return to the stone-age doctrine of power in a state of anarchy (which is what international relations is widely regarded to be). They also don't get a vote now.

There are other factors too, of course. The UK used to be a major world power;
then they became a second-rate one, but allied with the U.S. and Europe. With
the rise of billion-person economies in China and India, and with the U.S.
already five times larger (320 million), the 60 million people in the UK
become an afterthought on the world stage, with limited ability to affect the
world's or their own destiny. A united Europe, however, with ten times that
population is a player.

The UK is 'freer' like Hawaii would be if they left the United States. Sharing
government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply
respect for others.

~~~
alexbilbie
> Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom,
> it's simply respect for others.

But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't
necessarily lead to a more effective system of government.

With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares it means trying to
form trade deals is a multi year process that leads to no tangible output (see
the failing Canada trade deal as a prime example).

You argue that 60 million people might not make a global super power but it's
going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one
conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions.

~~~
hackuser
> But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't
> necessarily lead to a more effective system of government.

Nothing "necessarily" leads to anything. See my comment above about FUD like
this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125)

> With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares ...

They'll be vying regardless. That's the nature, indeed the whole point, of
democracy: To provide a system of rules for doing that fairly, rather than
might makes right.

> it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements
> that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and
> opinions.

More FUD. They need to deal with those other nations' interests one way or the
other; who would choose anarchy over democracy?

The EU regularly makes trade deals among its 28 nations, far more quickly and
flexibly than any other trade block. That's because, rather than stone-age
international anarchy, which requires painful, undemocratic treaty
negotiations that are so difficult that they can't be updated and revisited,
they operate with normal laws and regulations.

How will the UK make deals now with those 28 nations? Certainly not as easily.
How will their 60 million have the leverage to get the deals that an entity
ten times bigger gets? Would the individual U.S. states be better off
negotiating international trade deals absent the federal government? After
all, then they wouldn't have to deal with all the other interests.

The ideology is naive. You have to deal with other people and their interests;
that's part of life. You can do it by fighting them or by cooperating to
create the best possible outcome. It also is moral, because we need to respect
that others' interests are as important as our own, another element of
maturity. It is called 'civilization' and even 'enlightened self-interest'.

------
TillE
It's really incredible that three months after the vote, we still haven't the
slightest idea what post-Brexit UK will look like. Will they go for the EEA
(the least destructive option), or will they - as Theresa May threatens -
sacrifice everything just to limit immigration?

Three months after the biggest decision in decades, and the subject is barely
even being talked about seriously in the UK. I don't understand it.

~~~
agumonkey
GBP stopped falling though. Dunno if it's because brexit stalled or because
the market thinks brexit will be fine.

~~~
dogma1138
The GBP stopped falling because the UK government spend about 250bln GBP to
stop it from falling further.

~~~
agumonkey
Was it reported in mainstream news ?

~~~
porker
If you count the Financial Times as mainstream, yes.

~~~
agumonkey
Not my radar but mainstrean indeed.

------
martinko
Indeed the most likely scenario appears to be the 'Norwegian model', where the
UK in essence remains in the single market and thus will have to follow
European regulations but will have a much smaller say when it comes to the
future direction of the EU. They will, however, have officially left the EU so
the leave camp can pat their shoulders over their Pyrrhic victory.

~~~
Numberwang
UK Will never be allowed to have 'The Norwegian Model' set up by EU. That
would have lot's of other countries asking for the same. UK is in for a long
winter on GoT type scale.

~~~
Scarblac
Why would other countries want that model? It seems to be strictly worse than
full membership.

~~~
edko
I also wonder why Norway wants that model?

~~~
jcranmer
Most likely fisheries. The EU's fishery policy is traditionally held as
horrible, and Norway and Iceland both have relative large fishing economies
and better-maintained fisheries than the EU CFP.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
One wonders if Norway could join the EU and get special exceptions to the CFP.

------
jerven
The full text can be found here.
[http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf](http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf)

Japans request is basically "Please don't Brexit or if you must pretend that
you did, but don't really..."

Brexit, will lead to an unforced reevaluation of the UKs governmental system
by its people. The entire Brexit concept is the most radical development ever
started by a conservative party in government.

------
woliveirajr
TL;DR: if japanese companies suffer losses in EU or other markets that import
from the UK, since Brexit might have impact in taxes, they might reconsider
the headquarters location and then move to continental EU.

------
ZenoArrow
Thinking about this from the perspective of the Japanese, they've got little
to lose by making this kind of threat. Either the British government give them
a deal that is just as good or better than they have now to encourage them to
stay, or they give them a good excuse to move their manufacturing elsewhere.

The real issue is when a community is overly reliant on jobs from a small
number of employers. That gives the employers more leverage when it comes to
extortion tactics like this.

~~~
woliveirajr
Don't think this was some kind of extortion. More a previous warning, like
"don't think that japan is in some retaliation by moving our companies, we
just asked about taxes earlier and you didn't care"

~~~
ZenoArrow
It's not like this is pre-Brexit. The decision to leave the EU has already
been made. The decision can't be ignored by the British government as it would
be political suicide. I'm sure the Japanese government are aware of this. The
question is then, why make these statements at all? The only explanation that
makes sense to me is opportunism on behalf of Japanese corporations.
Threatening to leave gives you bargaining power you wouldn't otherwise have.

~~~
anonymousDan
Not really, there is still plenty of room for manoeuvre as to what exactly
should be prioritised during the brexit negotiations. The Japanese are well
within their rights to warn about the potential implications of a hard brexit.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I'd argue that the Japanese corporations don't care what form of Brexit is
followed, so long as it doesn't hurt their bottom line. Mitigation against
potential losses could come in the form of tax breaks or other benefits
negotiated with the British government.

------
randomname2
Guardian analysis: "Japan's Brexit demands range from possible to fanciful"
([https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/04/japan-
brexit-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/04/japan-brexit-
demands-range-from-possible-to-fanciful))

------
matthewmorgan
Do people who keep talking 'trade deals' and 'single markets' actually know
what they're talking about? This video is instructive
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leKEUT1TiLU)

------
sjtgraham
They really should have produced a television drama like 1984's Threads before
the referendum, but substituting worst case economic Brexit implications for
nuclear holocaust.

------
georgeecollins
This is sad for the UK, but scary as an American facing an election where
people want to build a wall and "make America great again." Like Brexit, the
rhetoric sounds good to some, but those speaking have no idea how to implement
what they are talking about or the likely consequences.

I am not trying to make an argument for or against conservatism. I am saying
we need to ask politicians to explain their policies in detail.

------
showmustgoon
Are there any Japanese lobby or interest groups in the UK like the case in the
USA?

Any Brits to provide input about this point would be highly appreciated.

------
chvid
No way that the EU is going to remove the UK from its single market; the rest
of EU is far too dependent on demand from the UK economy.

~~~
jerven
I think that the EU will. The UK economy is a significant part of the EU
economy but the interests of continental governments are now aligned against
the UK. They are basically all thinking what can we get out of the UK, their
horsetrading has started and the UK has a lot less horses to trade. There are
just to many people the UK has to please at once to make the exit smooth for
the UK.

But for the next 2.5 years you wont really see it. In 2.5 years the crisis
will start. Just like the Swiss are only now starting to sweat.

~~~
polotics
could you clarify what you mean about the swiss?

~~~
barrkel
The Swiss have a more direct democracy than most, and recently voted to limit
free travel - trouble is, free travel is a condition of free market access,
and with this vote, they're going to lose that.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-
singl...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-
market-access-no-free-movement-citizens)

~~~
1wd
The Swiss still try to find a compromise that is compatible with free
movement.

[http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/immigration-vote-_sommaruga-
admi...](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/immigration-vote-_sommaruga-admits-major-
eu-concession-is--unrealistic-/42420448)

~~~
Create
freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on
nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment,
remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_worker...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union)

~~~
1wd
As I understand it, even though the "informal proposal" is about "prioritising
local workers over foreign ones" the _actual_ proposal only requires informing
the regional unemployment offices of open jobs, which might(?) not violate
freedom of movement.

~~~
Create
The issue is the following:

In February 2014, the Swiss voted in a referendum to introduce quotas for all
migrants in Switzerland. The referendum, which requires Switzerland to have
annual quotas for immigrants, does not take effect immediately but requires
the Swiss government to implement a quota system within three years.

Nothing to do with regional unemployment offices.

~~~
1wd
Right, the current proposal tries to implement that referendum in a "light"
way. The regional unemployment office measure would be step 2, and only in
step 3 might the actual quotas come up, with explicit approval by the EU only.

[https://www.parlament.ch/en/services/news/Pages/sda-
spk-n-20...](https://www.parlament.ch/en/services/news/Pages/sda-
spk-n-2016-09-02.aspx)

------
michaelbuddy
this "warning" was totally unnecessary and those kinds of acts go without
saying anyway. Whoever wrote it up doesn't realize that this attempt at
posturing makes them looks weak rather than strong.

~~~
martinko
I wouldn't say that this was a move to make them look strong. Its a plain
reminder to British decision makers as well as people that there will be
economic consequences if they decide to leave the single market. This is not a
threat - pure and simple, companies that operate from the UK now will have a
harder time post-exit.

~~~
michaelbuddy
Didn't say it was a threat. The headline said it was a warning.

------
Create
_A Modest Proposal_

brexit means brexit: since English is not native to any remaining EU member
country, drop it as an EU working language. With special regard to the
European Central Bank (banking passport system). Irish could still remain as
an official language^1, but the semi-official Welsh would need to go too.

^1 For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden
to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

~~~
peteretep

        > since English is not native to any remaining EU
        > member country
    

Might be worth doing your research.

~~~
Create
Don't be so _Swift_ with those downvotes^1.

You are suggesting, that Malta^2 is to command the ECB?

^1
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Unio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_European_Union)
\-- working is not the same as official

^2 or Ireland for that matter...

Second thought: maybe English could merit a semi-official status though (if
May succeeds). But most certainly not a working language (neither an official
one).

~~~
peteretep

       > Don't be so Swift
    

It wasn't that funny the first time.

    
    
        > working is not the same as official
    

English is both an official language of Ireland, and a native language of
Ireland. Irish is the third most commonly spoken language in Ireland, after
English and Poland. A full 60% of the population of ROI considers itself to be
incompetent at speaking Irish.

Malta is indeed represented on the ECB's Governing Council.

------
nbevans
A few thousand jobs that Japanese automakers bring to the UK is nothing
compared to the jobs that can be created as a result of a successful Brexit.
Jaguar Land Rover continues to go from strength to strength... how about
turning the tables so we are actually selling more cars to Japan than they
sell to us? Scary thought eh? That's what Brexit is about. It's about daring
to think big. Like Great Britain used to do for centuries.

~~~
alkonaut
Yup, that's how jobs are made. Make some good cars. Back out of the single
market where you can sell them easily. Hope the Japanese will buy more to
offset the losses in EU sales.

I don't think the reason more Japanese cars are sold to the UK than vice versa
is the single market.

~~~
nbevans
Sarcasm; the lowest form of wit.

~~~
alkonaut
Aww you could have made that sarcastic e.g. with

"Sarcasm. Just great."

------
vermooten
The knuckle-draggers who voted to leave the EU won't care about threats like
this - they'll just use hate speech to dismiss it. Downvote me by all means :)

~~~
open-source-ux
I voted remain, but completely agree. The Brexit politicians and the nasty
Brexit-supporting right wing press in the UK will completely spin the
situation as proof of how vindictive and mean everyone is for not giving into
the UK's demands. It's embarrassing.

By the way, Sunderland (in the North East of England), home to Nissan who
employ over 6000 people, voted 61% in favour of Brexit. A key reason Nissan
expanded operations in the UK was for access to the European market. One has
to wonder what people in Sunderland were thinking when they voted.

 _" UK officials reacted with astonishment that Japan had chosen to publish
this list of concerns and demands."_

The fact that UK officials reacted with astonishment shows how so many
Brexiters live in a fantasy land where they think Brexit is simply a matter of
picking-and-choosing all the rules and regulations that suit them.

~~~
Amezarak
> A key reason Nissan expanded operations in the UK was for access to the
> European market. One has to wonder what people in Sunderland were thinking
> when they voted.

I can't read their minds any more than you can, but maybe they prioritize
sovereignty or their idea of the UK over money. It sometimes disturbs me how
everything has to be reduced to an economic decision. You need money to live,
sure, but there's more to life than money.

And besides that, what I'm reading from Krugman and other economists is that
the economic consequences being published in the press are dramatically
overblown.

~~~
abeevor
When Nissan's workforce are all at the jobcentre, I'm sure they'll agree with
you there - I prioritize paying the mortgage

