[seankenny]

Some thoughts on Pete’s, Matt’s and others reply to my slightly uncompromising stance.

I might be wrong (and I’m not going to trawl my posts to check, we’ve all got better stuff to do surely?) but I’m fairly sure I’m not accusing Leave voters of being racists, legitimising racists, being racist sympathisers or directly responsible for racist behaviour. Apologies if I did.

The problem, as I keep saying, is that the perfectly reasonable UK laws/no federalism/trade links not political links/etc arguments (like Stone's above) became wrapped up with the nationalist/nativist/racist appeals to fear and anger. Worse than that – people who supported those arguments rode to power on the back of the nativist appeals. We can be pretty sure of this because the campaign was going badly until they doubled down on the anti-immigrant message. Again, it is possible to have a reasonable debate about immigration but this wasn’t a reasonable debate, was it? It was fear whipped up (and yes, the Remain camp did this, but not to the same extent or by pressing the same dark buttons).

I think the result of this way of campaigning represented an awful poisoned chalice for people like Pete: get what you want but at the very high risk of social unrest directed at minorities. Now of course it probably would have happened if Remain had won, but I believe that’s far too sanguine a view. (See this piece by Nick Cohen: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-lies-opening-terrifying-new-opportunity-far-right-britain/ ) Maybe there would be a spike, but from where I’m sitting it feels like a juddering shift to a new world. As I’ve said before, to me a lot of decent people wanted something very badly, and they’ve got it, but they are not going to have to pay the price themselves. We are most definitely not all in this together. (Well, at least in this respect. Clearly if the economy tanks we probably all are.)

Now, blame and responsibility. This is a really difficult topic isn’t it, as a moment’s thought about say, reparations for slavery or colonialism might suggest. Pete says I should be thinking in terms of “events with their own momentum”. The thing is, those events are just the actions of many, many people in aggregate. Where do those people stand in relation to the bigger world around them of which they are a tiny part, but nevertheless involved in shaping and in turn being shaped by? Half of our culture and civilisation is an attempt to answer these questions so anything I write on an internet forum is going to be somewhat hamstrung by my own intellectual and moral shortcomings…

My view fwiw, and I’m not being dogmatic about this if you have a better way of describing the world, is that responsibility isn’t an either/or thing. It’s more like a target. Right in the bullseye those responsible for calling my girlfriend a dirty Paki are the two nasty women in Kew Gardens. In the ring just outside lay Farrage, Johnson, Gove, Dacre and Desmond, the men who helped to fan fear of outsiders and people who are different. The Leave voters who lapped it all up and repeated it and let it become normal in their circles, they get another, slightly further out ring. Not directly responsible, but part of the problem.

Where do the non-racist, politically and economically motivated Leave voters fit into this schematic? Clearly – as I said above – a long, long way out. Is it their fault? No. Did they go along with something nasty to get what they desired? In my opinion, yes. I think that sullies what they won, as does the resort to anti-intellectualism and the rubbishing of experts.

Would I like to punish 17m people in an orgy of fascistic revenge? That’s a bit of an extrapolation but hey, this is the internet. But I am of the feeling that this really should give Leave voters pause for thought. Maybe make them a little uncomfy, because getting what you want at the expense of someone else’s safety (even if you didn’t want that, which I know you didn’t) isn’t a great position to be in.

[seankenny]

Just two points: I've not called them fascists, or racists, or dictatorial, but rather people who have emboldened those types. That's a very different thing. I totally accept they voted for very good reasons - in fact I wrote that too - but I get that saying  that good motivations can lead to awful outcomes and then suggesting they are in some very small way responsible for those outcomes makes people uncomfortable. It's the whole means and ends thing isn't it? If you get what you want, but at the price of your fellow countrymen and women feeling frightened to leave the house - perhaps there was a problem with the way you got it.

And do I believe this shit was there already? Some of it, but that assumes a set level of racism in society. I'm not sure I believe that but I could be wrong. There's no doubt several PhDs worth of work unpicking those sentences.

Anyhow, we now have a soiled and grim element to our national culture but that's okay because no ones making laws on kettles.

I don't where you live or frequent but I am staggered that you are not aware of the levels of racism in our society. I come across it at work from patients seeing an Asian doctor , you come across it in industry and in country pubs listening to the local farm workers.
I'm sure there are many more examples.

I don't know where you live, but I'm in London and the thought that our big companies, the government or any other large organisation could function well with that level of racism is staggering.

[Schnell]

Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.

The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.

Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.

[Oldmanmatt]

Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.

The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.

Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.

That was one of the things that seemed strange to me.
What cheap labour? Unless you were paying less than minimum wage, in which case you were breaking the law anyway.
I know from farmer friends, things like flower picking (where they still pay MW) were a bitch in years past. Recruiting was limited to school kids and students, who were (I'm afraid) not very productive. Now they, the ethical ones at least, employ large numbers of migrant workers, who earn more than they could at home and work hard.

Yes, I know about the abuses of that system. The flouting of law and basic human rights is a separate issue. It is still a minority of operators.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bonjoy]

Sean - I think healthy democracy demands that people vote according to there own conscience, without fear of being held responsible for the reasons other people voted the same way. Collective responsibility is a flawed principle and a slippery slope to its corollary collective punishment.

[Oldmanmatt]

Short and blunt.
But he always is.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/greenspan-calls-brexit-a-terrible-outcome-as-euro-area-tested


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tomtom]

One of the arguments is that by restricting immigration, to get anyone to do the 'shit' jobs, you have to pay more and more (so people are actually incentivised to drag their lazy arses to work etc..). So lets say the effective cabbage picking wage goes up to £15 hour.. that means that Cabbages then cost twice as much. So, to protect our cabbage producers, a cabbage levy is introduced to all foreign cabbages. Cost of living goes up (assuming cabbageflation principle is applied everywhere) and so do wages...

Isn't this what happens in CH?
So, McDonalds is a good global price/cost of living comparator - and in CH a value meal costs just under £10. (£3.69 here - last time Fiend told me... ). Would this be a bad thing? Or a good thing?

Its probably far more complex than that - but it doesnt make us competitive for exports does it (if it costs so much to make stuff). So what do we sell? (serious question - is it knowledge, expertise, financial services)

Anyone with any economic nous care to comment?

[seankenny]

Sean - I think healthy democracy demands that people vote according to there own conscience, without fear of being held responsible for the reasons other people voted the same way. Collective responsibility is a flawed principle and a slippery slope to it's corollary collective punishment.

As I said above, I'm not sure the question of "who's responsible for this" is totally straightforward and I've no desire to see any kind of "punishment". Awareness would be nice...

Of course more broadly this is why we have political parties isn't it? To take the flak and to be held accountable. The problem with referenda isn't just their binary nature, but that no one is responsible for the decision made. (Or lack of decision made, as in our increasingly weird case).

[stone]

One of the arguments is that by restricting immigration, to get anyone to do the 'shit' jobs, you have to pay more and more (so people are actually incentivised to drag their lazy arses to work etc..). So lets say the effective cabbage picking wage goes up to £15 hour.. that means that Cabbages then cost twice as much. So, to protect our cabbage producers, a cabbage levy is introduced to all foreign cabbages. Cost of living goes up (assuming cabbageflation principle is applied everywhere) and so do wages...

Isn't this what happens in CH?
So, McDonalds is a good global price/cost of living comparator - and in CH a value meal costs just under £10. (£3.69 here - last time Fiend told me... ). Would this be a bad thing? Or a good thing?

Its probably far more complex than that - but it doesnt make us competitive for exports does it (if it costs so much to make stuff). So what do we sell? (serious question - is it knowledge, expertise, financial services)

Anyone with any economic nous care to comment?

Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.

The effect on countries of origin has been ostensibly a concern of some of the leave campaign. Points based systems exacerbate the negative consequences of migration for countries of origin, i.e. they lose more of their highly educated workers.

Second, regarding the argument that pay and conditions are driven down by oversupply of labour, the conventional left wing response is to regulate pay and conditions, for example through minimum wage increases, or to empower workers to engage in collective bargaining. I'm not aware of any coherent argument why this situation is different. Obviously the usual 'it'll damage businesses' is irrelevant either a) if we're looking at it from the worker's perspective or b) from a purely economic point of view as reducing the supply of cheap labour is similarly contrary to business interests.

That was one of the things that seemed strange to me.
What cheap labour? Unless you were paying less than minimum wage, in which case you were breaking the law anyway.
I know from farmer friends, things like flower picking (where they still pay MW) were a bitch in years past. Recruiting was limited to school kids and students, who were (I'm afraid) not very productive. Now they, the ethical ones at least, employ large numbers of migrant workers, who earn more than they could at home and work hard.

Yes, I know about the abuses of that system. The flouting of law and basic human rights is a separate issue. It is still a minority of operators.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I totally agree that having stringent conditions such as generous minimum wage, child care, holidays etc is the best way to ensure that all jobs are suitably attractive. If it was "a bitch" to fill flower picking jobs, then evidently those jobs were not made suitably attractive. IMO, if we can't afford the products of jobs that are attractive enough, then either we need to automate more (creating highly paid, attractive, jobs making the machines) or we should do without. I suspect that the "low productivity" of the UK economy, that there has been so much hand wringing about, is partly because we have been replacing machines with low paid workers. A "car wash" used to be a machine, now it is a bunch of people with buckets and sponges (my car isn't washed ever ).
I think there is a case to be made that we wouldn't have the current situation of zero-hour contracts and pseudo-apprenticeships if there was more of a labour shortage. It is all very well to say that more union power could force better working conditions, but without a labour shortage, union power has a very hard job of getting any traction.
Switzerland (Tom Tom's example) and the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers. Japan has very little migrant workers either. I actually think having all jobs being respected and attractive is vital for a decent country.

[tomtom]

Thanks Stone - I don't completely agree with you, but interesting examples. I have seen the idea of paying people a flat rate minimum income regardless of working or not, as a mechanism for dealing with increased automation..

Anyway, its certainly going to be a big change in our economy and way of doing things.

Genuine question to Leave voters (not trolling for a response) - would you like to see a Norway style (or some form thereof) access to the EU, or full on independence - ie completely outside of EU with just some sort of trade deal with them?

[Schnell]

I totally agree that having stringent conditions such as generous minimum wage, child care, holidays etc is the best way to ensure that all jobs are suitably attractive. If it was "a bitch" to fill flower picking jobs, then evidently those jobs were not made suitably attractive. IMO, if we can't afford the products of jobs that are attractive enough, then either we need to automate more (creating highly paid, attractive, jobs making the machines) or we should do without. I suspect that the "low productivity" of the UK economy, that there has been so much hand wringing about, is partly because we have been replacing machines with low paid workers. A "car wash" used to be a machine, now it is a bunch of people with buckets and sponges (my car isn't washed ever ).
I think there is a case to be made that we wouldn't have the current situation of zero-hour contracts and pseudo-apprenticeships if there was more of a labour shortage. It is all very well to say that more union power could force better working conditions, but without a labour shortage, union power has a very hard job of getting any traction.
Switzerland (Tom Tom's example) and the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers. Japan has very little migrant workers either. I actually think having all jobs being respected and attractive is vital for a decent country.

In relation to the 'labour oversupply' argument, this is one of the fundamental things I don't get about the leave argument. Essentially there is never a fixed number of jobs in any economy, just as there is not a fixed number of gp appointments/bus services or whatever people are complaining about immigrants using up. There's the obvious point that immigrants use services and consume products as well as starting businesses and employing people. Second, there's the fact that the state of overall job supply is determined by availability of investment, skills, provision of infrastructure etc. This highlights that there's a whole load of different elements that go into job creation. Labour supply is one variable and it might have some relationship to immigration, but it's not the only one, and importantly it's not the only one that the state has or should have a role in making decisions about.

This is before even considering the fact that there is a total disconnect between where voted leave and where has experienced most in-migration. Rural south wales is full?

[erm]

the Scandinavian countries do well enough without having exploited workers.

And are just as unequal as the US before redistribution by the state. This happens at a level that I don't see evidence of the UK accepting.

[Johnny Brown]

France is making a bid for London's financial trade; they will give us migration cap we get free trade but give them euro clearing etc. Cunning, plays to the little englanders perfectly - less poles, and kick the bankers. Result nationally will fuck our economy.

[tomtom]

France is making a bid for London's financial trade; they will give us migration cap we get free trade but give them euro clearing etc. Cunning, plays to the little englanders perfectly - less poles, and kick the bankers. Result nationally will fuck our economy.

All the more reason to stockpile rock boots and chalk...

[petejh]

Haven't read recent posts so apologies if I'm off on a tangent mid topic..

Can I ask a question to OMM, Duma and others who were glad to give rolling market updates while the indices were dropping and who seem keen to play the role of 'messenger of doom' with predictions of imminent crashes.

Why aren't you giving updates when markets are rising? Are you not as interested in success as you are possible failure?  Rubberneckers at a possible financial crash?

The ftse 250 1 and 5 year.








The ftse 100 1 and 5 year.






FT suggesting markets are realising we're not all as immediately shafted as many on here were predicting.


Since the pound dropped I've gained £400 in two days on my shares on the NASDAQ without them doing anything; on top of any rises in the share price (which has also happened), minor yyfy

[Johnny Brown]

I see you've already clicked on 'Don't be misled by FTSE 250's post-Brexit mini revival' Pete, perhaps you can tell us? £ vs $ has stabilised at a new significantly low level, only slightly higher than the bottom of Friday's crash. Likewise £ to €.

It's a stabilisation, not a recovery.

[petejh]

I'm talking about the share indices.

You're talking about the pound v dollar. The relative relationship of pound to dollar has various permutations, none of them an indicator in itself of economic success or failure.It isn't set in stone that the pound must be 1.60 dollar and many economists have commented that it's overdue a re-balance and pointed to the benefits such as a positive for exports

[petejh]

I see you've already clicked on 'Don't be misled by FTSE 250's post-Brexit mini revival' Pete, perhaps you can tell us?

Since you asked:

''In the two trading days following Brexit, the FTSE 250 slumped by over 13% as investors became nervous regarding the prospects for the UK economy. The FTSE 250 bore the brunt of investors' fears because it is much more dependent upon the UK economy than the FTSE 100. However, since Monday, the FTSE 250 has staged a revival of sorts. It has risen by over 5%, but investors shouldn't get too excited just yet.

Considerable volatility
A key reason for this is that the effects of Brexit will take years to fully transpire. We are less than four working days in to a new era for the UK economy and it will therefore take time for the full effects of the decision to be made clear. Therefore, there is likely to be considerable volatility in the next few years, and it could be easy for investors to mistake  a couple of days of share price gains for the start of a bull market. However, the reality is that such an uncertain future generally means that price movement is the result of  volatility rather than a sustained trend in either direction.
As mentioned, the FTSE 250's constituents are highly reliant upon the UK economy for their earnings and this could cause a number of problems for the index. While the FTSE 100 is set to benefit from rising earnings as sterling weakens and the global economy continues to offer upbeat growth prospects, the UK may experience a recession and this would undoubtedly cause the FTSE 250 to fall.

Reduced foreign investment
Of course, there is no certainty of a recession, and the UK economy will gain a boost from a weaker currency. That's because exports will become more competitive and their contribution to GDP will rise. However, imports will simultaneously become more expensive, and this could hold back consumer spending at a time when people across the UK are already feeling nervous about their jobs and financial future.
Furthermore, the UK's exit from the EU could cause reduced investment from foreign companies. Access to the single market is favoured by multinationals and if the UK does not gain access, the job losses or job relocations could become a feature of the next few years. This would have a detrimental effect on the FTSE 250 since, as a UK-focused index, it is much more closely tied to the macroeconomic outlook for the UK than is the case for the FTSE 100.

Higher potential rewards
Despite this, in the long run the FTSE 250 is likely to prove to be an excellent investment. This may sound counter-intuitive at a time when its outlook is exceptionally uncertain. However, the UK has faced numerous challenges in its history and has always been able to recover in the long run. As the sixth biggest economy in the world, there is still significant appeal for companies and individuals to invest here. That's even more so when the UK's talent pool, political stability and ownership rights are factored in.

And of course, with the FTSE 250 having fallen since Thursday's vote, it now offers even better value for money and higher potential rewards. So, for long-term investors, buying now seems to be a sound move. But they shouldn't think that the worst is over after just a day and a half of gains.''

[petejh]

The key words in all of this being 'could', 'may', 'no certainty' etc.

Habrich - yeah I know that it's a dead cat bounce. Just attempting to counter some of the doom-mongers on here.

[Jaspersharpe]

Fucks sake Pete. You often talk a lot of sense on here but you're just clutching at straws on this one. Markets are stabilising because the BoE and others are promising stimuli to save the pound etc and the growing view that whatever happens, things won't actually change that much in the end. Not because this was a good idea.

On the subject of culpability, I think this was actually the (generally unintended) genius of the Leave campaign.

The Remain team kept pointing out that there was no cohesive message and no plan, and by not denying such, Leave became an ideology which anyone could shape to fit their views.

So the rose tinted, libertarian ideas of an economy free from outside control, hard left socialist ideas of shafting the banks and "big business", neo Nazi racist ideas of "sending em all back", ordinary people's ideas that we need to spend more on the NHS plus any number of others could all be held, with the believers in each happy in the knowledge that they were voting for their Leave, not the other lots Leave. It could be a vote for/against whatever you wanted it to be.

As it turns out, whichever you were you made the wrong choice because there really was no plan, they lied about all of it and all you ended up voting for was chaos, desperate backtracking to try to keep things as they were and a side order of nasty racist incidents (which I agree could have happened with either result after the disgraceful Leave campaign).

I don't think it's right to say that everyone who voted leave is in some way complicit with the racists but I do think that it might have been an idea to ignore any form of idealism when choosing which way to vote. This choice was always going to end in a great big fucking mess.

Of course that would have meant listening to "the experts" and as Gove said, we've had enough of them and their pesky facts.

And sorry, I'm writing this on my phone so it's probably full of typos etc

[petejh]

Do you mean to say people voted for a fundamental change in the political landscape?
Without having a clear idea of what exactly that change might look like?
But that's not a positive?

What have most socialists/liberals on ukb been waffling about for about the last million days? Change per chance?
Significant change comes following major upheaval. It never comes from careful cautious following of a well-worn path. The best you can hope and work towards is making what follows an improvement.

It seems to me the politics in the UK and most of the west has reached a point where these sorts of events are inevitable.

And turn your own argument on the Remain side Jasper. Because it also covers a multitude of reasons and beliefs. So what exactly is the difference other than known versus unknown?

[Jaspersharpe]

No, I'm not saying that they voted for a fundamental change in the political landscape. I'm saying that some may have but that lots of others voted to keep most things the same but with the changes they individually wanted. You can see this by looking at the demographic of who voted each way. Hardly the vanguard of those wanting reform and a new type of politics.

This is why so many directly after the vote said that they wished they'd voted differently.

If you voted for massive upheaval and uncertainty then yeah, you probably did win. But although this potentially opens the door for a progressive liberal type of politics to thrive, the problem is that it has also massively empowered the far right.

If people wanted a protest vote about the sorry state of politics in this country then why didn't they use it at the General Election instead of now?

Oh yeah, they did. By voting Ukip in their millions. This vote was a chance to diminish that type of horrible, racist, nonsensical far right attitude but the idealists have inadvertently helped promote and sustain it by making them think that 17m agree with them.

[stone]

I didn't vote for a "Leave government", I voted to leave so that we could in future have whatever government we vote for. If I don't like the first government that gets in (ie I was presuming a Tory government as they are currently in power), then it's up to me to campaign for something better for the following election. For me the principle was that we should be governed by who we elect rather than by some remote mishmash of various countries that isn't accountable to the electorate of any of them.
It's just like how when India became independent in 1947, support wasn't dependent on what political flavour was likely to get elected in the first instance.
You just have to set up institutions with the appropriate structure and then do your best to ensure that that leads to good governance. As I see it, the EU doesn't have an appropriate structure, and so, as a result, we get shoddy governance (witness Greece, fish discards, bonkers agricultural policies etc).

[petejh]

This is why so many directly after the vote said that they wished they'd voted differently.

I presume you include the 4% of Remain voters in this or does your point only apply to the Leave vote?

If people wanted a protest vote about the sorry state of politics in this country then why didn't they use it at the General Election instead of now?

I believe people want change, not a protest. But who represents this view? Labour? ...



Stone sums up my view. I too believe that the EU in effect acts as a 'middleman' in our politics and contributes to the population thinking they can't change anything because real power resides somewhere remote and not with the people they have any influence over i.e. the government we select/deselect every 5 years. Long term I think this situation has contributed to public engagement in politics.

[Offwidth]

Like most people who voted Leave, immigration wasn't my main consideration http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
That said, I thought that voting leave was compatible with my liberal outlook and enthusiasm for a multicultural UK.
I don't see how a points-based immigration policy can be cast as more xenophobic than a system that favours Europeans. If we are happy with say immigration of say 500000 people a year, then the consequence of those being via a points based system is very different than if they were via free movement. A points based system could facilitate sharing of expertise around the world. By contrast, free movement can result in the toxic situation of many jobs descending into pay and conditions where "British people won't do them". We then have the dysfunctional situation where we depend on a constant flow of exploited new migrants.
IMO good immigration is where people are moving to be with their family and friends and/or doing work that makes the best use of their talents. Bad immigration is where people are homesick and doing work less significant than they would be doing where they have moved from. Sadly many migrants are caught up in just such a messed up situation -driven by money.

Those accusing all leave voters of being racist or xenophobic (but how many are really saying this?... or is it largely a brexiters' rhetorical strawman??) are as stupid as the xenophobes (migration is mainly positive and certainly adds to our UK wealth). Its certain that plenty of brexiters will have had thought-through honourable opinions with not a wiff of xenophobia . However, given the size of the win margin xenophobia will certainly have swung it and pretty much all the racists (and given what I've experienced in my life I'd be amazed if they don't number close to the majority) will be on the leave side.  This is a big concern to me as too little was done to avoid let alone fight the UKIP dog whistles from the main leave campaign group. If I were a little more sceptic of EU democracy and considering a leave vote  (I'm pretty sceptical but was always neutral in this respect as I saw UK democracy as little better), as the campaign grew the 'dog whistle' issues would have trumped any lesser democratic or economic concerns I had and would have forced me to make a remain vote.  I am worried that the campaign has empowered racists and encouraged xenophobic ignorance that will take some time as a society to unpick... and its not over yet: the dogs can be re-used to ensure more political ends in this area and similar. I don't think we can afford to be relaxed about this, even if a vote won by lies and xenophobia in a campaign blighted by lies on both sides and with a depressing disdain for expert opinion, eventually unpicks.

People I know have already noticed a difference with racist comments and intimidation and over 10% of those working in my University are from the continental EU and not far behind that in addition from other international countries (high I know, but how many english people do PhDs these days?). We also have thousands of international students (incidently a massive export income for the UK).

The staus quo wasn't so great. Fumbling attempts by immigration staff to critique medical X ray evidence or suitability of language for scientific study. A student denied a visa for a one year UK top-up because someone thought as originally being a herbal doctor his two years studying computing in Malaysia at some significant expense was a ruse to obtain UK entry (and not to complete the final year of a BSc). Academics asked to police student political views  (  http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/prevent/ ). My PhD student under Tier 4 immagration rules needing to find £35k from friends and family at short notice to enable an extention of his and his wife and kids' visas... the extension due to mitigation that his home city is in a war zone (where moving money is a genuine risk to life).