Recruitment used to be relatively simple.
You had a vacancy.
You advertised it.
You found someone with the right skills.
They had the right to work.
You hired them.
For many UK employers, recruiting from the EU was part of that process.
Then Brexit changed the rules.
And the question I want to explore isn’t whether Brexit was politically right or wrong.
From an HR perspective, did we make recruitment harder?
The EU talent pool is no longer automatically available
Since the end of free movement, EU, EEA and Swiss citizens arriving to work in the UK generally need immigration status allowing them to work.
An EU passport is no longer, by itself, sufficient proof of the right to work for most people who arrived after the transition period.
And employers recruiting eligible overseas workers will generally need a sponsor licence.
That creates another layer in recruitment:
Immigration eligibility.
Sponsorship.
Additional administration.
Additional cost.
And potentially:
A smaller pool of candidates willing to make the move.
But did EU workers actually leave?
Some did.
Some stayed.
And the picture isn’t as simple as “Brexit made EU workers disappear”.
According to the Migration Observatory, the number of EU-origin workers grew substantially during the 2010s, but growth slowed following the referendum and reversed during the pandemic.
Under the post-Brexit system, non-EU workers became the main source of growth in the migrant workforce.
By December 2024, there were approximately 134,000 fewer EU workers in employment than in December 2020.
At the same time, non-EU employment increased substantially.
So Britain didn’t simply stop recruiting internationally.
We changed who we recruit from.
And that distinction is important.
The problem is that the replacement isn’t always equivalent
This is where the HR conversation gets particularly interesting.
The old system wasn’t necessarily perfect.
But it gave employers access to a very large pool of workers across Europe, including people who could move to the UK for jobs that didn’t meet today’s sponsorship requirements.
The post-Brexit system is different.
EU citizens now compete for work visas under the same broad immigration framework as other non-UK nationals.
And salary and skills requirements can make some roles much harder to recruit internationally.
The Migration Observatory notes that EU citizens have become a much smaller share of work visa recipients and that the jobs attracting EU workers under the current system are different from those they commonly filled under free movement.
That matters enormously for HR.
Because recruitment isn’t just about:
“Can I find someone?”
It’s also:
“Can I find someone who is legally able and willing to take this particular job?”
Some sectors felt this particularly strongly
Think about industries that historically relied heavily on EU labour:
Hospitality.
Agriculture.
Construction.
Logistics.
Food production.
Retail.
These sectors often require large numbers of workers, and not necessarily workers in occupations that fit the sponsorship system.
The ONS found that, during the period when businesses were experiencing recruitment difficulties after the pandemic, a reduced number of EU applicants was specifically identified by businesses as one factor contributing to difficulty filling vacancies.
And the Migration Observatory has found that non-EU workers have increasingly replaced EU workers even in sectors such as hospitality, retail and administrative/support services.
But here’s where I think the debate becomes uncomfortable
Perhaps the biggest question isn’t:
“Did Brexit reduce immigration?”
It clearly changed the composition and mechanisms of immigration.
The more relevant HR question is:
“Did we make it harder for businesses to access the people they actually need?”
Because if a business cannot recruit locally…
and cannot sponsor the role…
and cannot attract someone from overseas…
what happens?
The vacancy remains open.
Or the business increases wages.
Or it invests in automation.
Or existing employees absorb the workload.
Or, in some cases, the organisation simply does less.
Research from the Migration Observatory found evidence of employers adapting in these ways after the end of free movement, including reducing labour requirements, increasing pay and using automation.
And there is another side to the story
It would be too easy to say:
“Brexit made recruitment harder, therefore Brexit was bad.”
That’s not a serious HR analysis.
The UK also gained greater control over who can enter the labour market.
The current system allows government to determine which occupations and skills can qualify for work migration.
And employers have had to think more seriously about:
- workforce planning;
- pay;
- retention;
- training;
- automation;
- succession planning;
- and developing domestic talent.
Some of those changes could ultimately be positive.
But there is a difference between encouraging businesses to develop home-grown talent and removing access to a talent pool before the domestic pipeline is ready to replace it.
What does this mean for HR?
For me, Brexit has reinforced something HR should already know:
Recruitment and workforce planning are not the same thing.
Recruitment asks:
“Who can we hire today?”
Workforce planning asks:
“What skills will we need in three years — and where will they come from?”
If an organisation previously relied heavily on EU recruitment, Brexit should have forced a rethink.
Can we train people?
Can we improve retention?
Can we make roles more attractive?
Can we improve pay?
Can technology reduce the dependency?
Can we create clearer career paths?
Can we develop apprenticeships?
And where we genuinely cannot fill the gap domestically:
Can we use international recruitment legally and responsibly?
My HR perspective
I don’t think the answer is to pretend Brexit didn’t happen.
It did.
And for HR teams, the recruitment landscape is fundamentally different.
The question now is whether organisations have adapted.
Because the UK still has vacancies.
The latest CIPD Labour Market Outlook shows that 31% of employers report hard-to-fill vacancies, despite overall hiring remaining subdued.
So we have an interesting situation:
Businesses are cautious about hiring.
Some skills remain difficult to find.
The international talent pool has changed.
And employers have more responsibility for building the workforce they need.
Maybe the real lesson from Brexit isn’t simply:
“Recruitment became harder.”
Maybe it’s:
“You can change the rules of the labour market much faster than you can change the skills available within it.”
And that’s something HR should be paying very close attention to.