David Davis is going to say today:
They fear that Brexit could lead to an Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom. With Britain plunged into a Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction. These fears about a race to the bottom are based on nothing, not history, not intention, nor interest.
I wish I could believe him but I know I will stand alongside the millions who do not.
If Brexit was about anything for those who supported it then it was about deregulation. Every comment by every minister ever since has suggested that's the case.
David Davis must think we're all stupid.
We're not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Mad Max? Dozy Dave more like.
If Dozy Dave has a vision other than the negative vision he attempts to dispel, I wish he’d tell us what it is and maybe give some hints as to how we might be going to get there.
I’m not familiar with the world of Mad Max, I assume it’s a not a desirable state to aspire to.
Im not an expert either but I do know that Tina Turner played the queen of the evil town, Bartertown. Does that make her the Theresa May character? And Bartertown sounds worryingly like the neoliberals dream place
If we were looking for a film reference to sum up the negotiating talents of Davis and Fox I think Dumb and Dumber would be more appropriate 🙂
There is a marked difference in aims between the people that voted for brexit and those that campaigned for it. I think that the single biggest issue for leave voters that I have spoken to was immigration whereas (as you say) most of the prominent leave campaigners are in the camp that says that the future is about deregulation (see Britannia Unchained for example).
Some electoral support for the deregulation agenda could be claimed by referencing the vague “not being ruled by Brussels” feeling, but it has (intentionally) not really been spelled out what this means.
If we had a properly functioning democracy in this country then leaving the EU would not be so important (specifically on this deregulation agenda) because if the government followed that path and it was unpopular then they would be voted out – but with the FPTP mess that we have anything is possible 🙁
Agreed
All good points. When Richard writes:’If Brexit was about anything for those who supported it then it was about deregulation’ that is clearly not the case as those who voted for it were fed lies and false narratives about immigration and money that could be used on the NHS (as if the Brexit cheerleaders cared a hoot about that!). The Tories have been feeding the populace false narratives for the last seven years and the Brexit-bo**ocks was the icing on the cake of faecal matter. Public treated like mushrooms aided and abetted by a media incapable of offering much better on the whole.
The ‘taking back control’ simply meant an increased rentier economy forcing people into an even more intensely financialised world where the non- financialised are scapegoated as inferior humans. Thisis something that has already been going on for the last 7 years so the race to the bottom has already been well developed, so Davis is talking utter garbage because we’re well on the way to the bottom.
The only thing that can come out of Brexit combined with austerity -plus will be a sort of ‘The Worse the Better’ type of situation where people finally realise they have been scammed but the suffering created in the meantime will increase. Unfortunately, recent research (www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/anguage-austerity-economic-policy) seems to show what we already know, that the public are unaware of alternatives and are largely fatalistic and shoulder shrugging in the face of the sense of a democratic deficit. The rest of the EU is largely clueless in the face of a strengthening Right and stagnation everywhere. The EU itself is largely a race to the bottom world despite the fact that it tosses out the odd bit of ‘progressive’ sounding stuff floating in a neo-liberal sea.
The whole thing is a terrible mess and we are laboratory rats in an experiment that has gone on for 40 years and probably has legs for another 30 despite incontrovertible evidence the experiment has failed.
Davis doesn’t ‘think’ we are all stupid-he’s not capable of real thought at any level.
A very well made point. I would merely add that the ideological deregulators of Brexit have no intention of markedly reducing immigration; what they will do is simply establish contols over EU immigration (probably to be more honoured in the breach than the observance), and increase immigration rapidly from outside the EU. There will be much hoopla about “control”, but there will be no investment in the infrastructure commensurate with the policy. And the whole policy fraud will hence unfold; complete with inevitable scandals that will require a few crackdowns, threats and promises of action, that never materialise outside the pages of the Telegraph and Mail.
Yes- but not only is the UK in ‘solution-free’ mode, the EU as a whole has failed to find ANY unifying narrative, which is very worrying. here’s ane extract from a recent research by the Bruegel Institute:
. ‘A transnational consensus view on the causes and consequences
of the euro-area crisis — in other words, a common economic narrative on the risks faced by
the euro area — is missing. This impedes the emergence of a common body of public opinion
as the basis for a debate around the reform agenda for the euro area as a whole.’
It also concluded:
‘The picture of differing public spheres shows that each euro-area country faces different
pressures from their respective publics when discussing how to press ahead with sensible and
comprehensive institutional euro-area governance reforms’ (Tales from a Crisis: Diverging narratives of the Euro Area: http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PC-03_2018-150118.pdf)
This cannot bode well and could create increasing instability.
Mr Cohen,
I do not doubt the problems for the EU, but it cannot afford to fail; and at least Europeans understand the nature and scale of the problem. It is always difficult for the EU but it must survive; it is just too important, and it must find a better modus vivendi.
Britain, however has no self-knowledge and not the slightest understanding of what it is doing; or rather, transparently failing to do. The indifference to the scale of the problem within the ranks of Conservative Brexiteers is, frankly, chilling. All that is left is to interpret whether this is the result of rank stupidity, or worse; it is quite deliberate. Cui bono?
No history? I would beg to differ. I could choose from several episodes but I think the Darien Scheme is apposite. A madcap scheme, with no concern for planning or detail pushed ahead way beyond any logical or evidential justification. Financial and political skullduggery by City financiers and select groups who stood to benefit from the eventual, inevitable collapse. The Darien scheme resulted in poverty for large numbers of the population but not the important ones ( in London). The result was decades of hostility and mistrust between sections of this island’s people to the extent that the tremors can still be felt 300 years later.
Not an exact match I’ll grant you but one with sufficient correlation to deserve a less dismissive attitude from our politicians.
1) state the proposition
2) state unrelated easily understood absurdity
3) state falsehoods about proposition (ideally including one bit of truth so sentence rings true.)
Thereby proposition looks absurd on first scan… the absurdity is perfect for sound bite and detracts from spurious argument.
Nicely played by Davis, the one truth…
a race to the bottom {not in our} interest.
Can anybody tell me at what event DD is speaking. All I can find is that it in Vienna to business leaders. Apparently it is part of a whistle stop tour of 5 capitals.
Is this another Florence? That little specially arranged jaunt cost close to £250,000 and achieved absolutely nothing.
How much is this farrago going to cost???
The event is as crass as May going to Florence not long ago
Why not say it in Bristol?
Once we are out, whatever promises were made not pursuing a Singapore style economy will be void, and with much feigned regret the like sof Mogg, Patel and Raab will say that the only way we can now compete is to take a bulldozer to business taxes and regulation. That’s been the prize from the outset.
Agreed
At least Singapore has a form of land value capture whereas we have land value siphoning on steroids. We wont have that as Land is the rentiers central pillar on this septic Isle.
There will be blood.
It is very easy to say what Brexit is not going to be it seems but it seems impossible to tell us what it will be. Davis doesn’t mention whose history, whose intention and whose interest but none of these are a collective whole. It seems obvious that for the majority Brexit will be damaging as to by how much who knows but all our histories, intentions and interests will be damaged even those who support leave. They just do not want to acknowledge the fact.
The issue of Europe is far from clear cut and there are as many negatives with staying in as there are with leaving..where is the balance here? read Joseph Stiglitz to understand the inequality european integration has caused (specifially through the euro) and the negotiation process gives some insight into the intransigence of EU political decision makers which would otherwise have manifested in different ways if we remained a committed member. I personally find it a challenge to properly understand the pros and cons of membership and i have read widely on it. Richard murphy himself wants significant reform within the EU (most of which probably cannot be achieved) so the picture is not clear cut.
Posters on here must prevent themselves from believing that people who voted to leave are in someway naive or misguided or uneducated to the truth or racist or whatever – this just shows incredible arrogance…the posters on https://briefingsforbrexit.com could rebound the arguments put on this blog with ease which provides emphasis to my point that the issue is so incredibly complex and is not clear cut.
Why can’t EU reform be achiev3d?
It’s been remarkably adaptable to date
‘It’s been remarkably adaptable to date’
Tell that to the people of Greece who are suffering catastrophes for a small part of total Eurozone debt.
Tell that to the 31% Italian youth unemployed
To the 39% Spanish unemployed Youth
To the old people living in increasing poverty in Germany
To the Greeks that had to suffer firesales of assets.
To the thousands who suffered housing eviction in Spain because uncontrolled hot money had bubbled the housing market.
To the people concerned about the rise and rise of the Right due to austerity and economic illiteracy.
Tell that to the Portuguese who emigrated in huge numbers and whose youth unemployment is at 24%
The list goes on……adapting to what?
That’s the ECB
Not the EU
And no, they are not the same thing
And ironically some of the better aspects of that adaptation were pushed by UK, obviously I’m not talking about the Euro. I think Jim has it right.
I was questioning why he said it cannot change
I think it can
I totally agree, Richard. And this is the crux of the entire ‘argument’. The only achievable route to a more prosperous, safe, egalitarian and culturally rich Continent of Europe (and hence World) is from within the EU. Brexiteers fail to grasp that those who voted to remain are not a homogenous group of blind Europhiles. There is, and always has been, strong pressure from within the EU to reform its institutions, not least the neo-liberal inspired Euro – which wisely we decided not to join. And, as you say, this process has been on-going since its inception. For heaven’s sake it’s only 25 years since Maastricht. By quitting we have reneged on the progressive forces within the EU, risking long-term destabilisation of the continent as a whole. Perfidious Albion! The self-aggrandising 19th century concept of British exceptionalism should’ve been dumped into the dustbin of history in 1918.
If the UK equivalent of the Tea Party ( historical irony intended) achieves its stated objectives we will even further enhance our status as a vassal state of the USA. Trump made it unequivocally clear at his inauguration – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIaoZqMrbCo. In fact it’s nothing new – starting with the genocide of the native population.
QED!
Oops – on Feb 7th it was 26 years since Maastricht. Seems like an eternity ago.
Jim, and Simon
the euro was designed by bankers (Robert Mundell a Canadian supply sider was a major influence). It’s weakness was exposed by the financial crisis the epi-centre of which was wall Street.
The ECB was designed to be independent of politicians ( as bank of England is supposed to be-a neo-liberal feature) including those in the European Parliament . The Trioka which inflicted the suffering on Greece and which I deplore, was made up of the ECB, the IMF with its American dominance and the commission dominated by France and Germany whose banks were exposed by their reckless lending.
The recession in Spain and here was a result of the banking crisis and their bail out.
The EU also stands for easier trading which helps us, for joint scientific research, for easier travel,
for co-operation in the fields of crime and terrorism and joint foreign policy approaches such as the Iran nuclear deal. These are things we would be daft to throw away.
We need to distinguish between what the EU can and does do and the economic doctrines which have run it (and the Uk and US) for years. The sort of people leading Brexit seem to be those who think yet more neo-liberalism is the answer.
I agree reform will not be easy but who else is even talking about the Financial transactions tax or implementing things like country by country reporting? We may be at a tipping point.
I would rather go with the hope of reform than accept the results of Brexit.
There is no way the UK will be as adventurous as the EU is willing to be, of that we can be sure
Sorry to tip toe in here and sound like a stuck record but my position on the EU clear:
The EU – and the tolerance of the ECB – which some here have quite rightly pointed the finger at in terms of the problems in Greece and other potential instabilities in the Euro zone – simply reflects the neo-liberalism inherent in the member states.
Neo-liberalism in the EU starts at home in the sovereign governments who make up its membership.
And neo-liberalism in the EU will end at home first when the member states begin to choose to eschew its now discredited doctrines.
And then change can begin.
The EU has made mistakes, but I am more forgiving of European failure than of Britain’s insincere and, below the surface ‘form over substance’ phoney-affability of our membership down the decades, our downright duplicity has ended with Brexit; for two reasons.
First, the EU was forced into over rapid expansion because of “events”; the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Euorpe is never granted the time to do things at an opportune pace, or moment. Second, Britain could have achieved much, much more in and for the EU if it had the fortitude and vision to choose to be a committed member; that was intent on forging and developing the Union, rather than the endless gerrymandering and obfuscation of the road we chose. Such a more visionary commitment requires “leadership” and it could have made a difference (and established a more flexible culture in the EU); but only too typical of vulgar British insularity, we chose instead – quite deliberately – to take a much more destructive, merely spoiling approach to European integration. To my profound regret, Britain quite cynically encouraged over-rapid expansion of membership, knowing the problems this would create: and now, in the EU’s moment of need, we simply wash our hands and walk away from responsibility. I am utterly appalled at what we have done.
“They” seem to think everything must turn up for the best in this best of all possible worlds. It will just fall into their laps without any planning or effort. (After all, we have the sixth … er, seventh, eighth…. well, one of the largest economies in the world. And we will be liberated from an imagined EU imposed straitjacket to expand our economy by trading with countries from Algeria and Angola to Yemen and Zambia. Particularly the nice ones we can colour pink again because they all love us so much.)
“We” are concerned that Brexit will make everyone worse off. Not just the UK, but the EU too. It is not a zero-sum game. If we get it wrong, it is lose-lose. And not just in economic terms.
From Wikipedia
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
National result
Choice Votes %
Leave the European Union 17,410,742 51.89%
Remain a member of the European Union 16,141,241 48.11%
Valid votes 33,551,983 99.92%
Invalid or blank votes 25,359 0.08%
Total votes 33,577,342 100.00%
Registered voters and turnout 46,500,001 72.21%
Voting age population and turnout 51,356,768 65.38%
Source: Electoral Commission
This indicates that only 1/3 of the voting age population wants to leave the EU.
Is this democracy? I know this is old news, but we must keep shouting about it.
2/3 DID NOT VOTE LEAVE, IN A REFERENDUM THAT WAS ONLY ADVISORY.
Whenever people bring up the fact that only 30% of eligible voters voted for Brexit it always makes me think of the Tories’ 2016 Trade Union Act which said that in respect of public sector unions a vote of 40% of eligible voters is required for strike action. If the same criterion was applied (and why not?) then the leave vote would have won but the referendum itself would have failed so we would be staying in. It is an interesting question to ask which of these two situations should require the more stringent test? The one which only affects part of one sector of the country or the one which affects the whole country?
Alan McGowan says:
“Whenever people bring up the fact that only 30% of eligible voters voted for ……. ”
This, sadly, is democracy abused and manipulated. Under FPTP we get parties in government on the same sort of split. 30% yields a landslide in Westminster.
It’s a nonsense. Without a properly representative voting system we are led by the nose.
If you were in a race to the bottom you are not likely to say so are you? Difficult to understand where the content of any of this might lie.
The Slithy Gove was all over the media today with his bright green promises to protect the environment and animal welfare – but he failed to mention about stopping imports from countries with lower standards, which could be a positive from Brexit. I suspect the farmers are not so naive as he thinks.
Hi Carol,
I gather the Scottish farmers are getting increasingly concerned about the future.
So much of the modern industrial agriculture relies on foreign migrant workers, and they move (northwards) with the harvests.
The tenor of the Gove plan is big on pretty countryside and light on agriculture. It will suit the big Tory landowners who will be subsidised for making nice environments for weekend walks, and pretty landscape to be viewed from second homes and holiday cottages.
It doesn’t add up – to be relying on imported food from Europe when we are distancing ourselves from the EU. I detect a lack of joined up thinking.
My views on Davis are very straightforward.
To me, it’s not that he thinks that we are all stupid.
Rather it’s that he and his fellow wreckers just do not care.
Which is even worse really.
You can fool most of the people most of the time but not all of the people all of the time when you control the media and information dissemination and Davis et all are perfectly aware of this otherwise Brexit would never have happened. The estimated 20% of those who voted for Brexit did so not because they wanted to leave but as a “protest” against Cameron’s government believing Brexit would never happen. Now that is STUPID.