The dark charisma of Boris Johnson: how to "gaslight" an electorate

Britain has had more than 100,000 deaths from the Coronavirus, one of the highest rates in the world. Japan, another highly-developed country that is also an island, has had a little over 5,000 deaths due to Covid-19.

Under normal circumstances, you would expect the electorate to punish their government for such an appalling number of avoidable deaths. But in the UK, these are not normal circumstances, because Boris Johnson is charge and nothing is ever his fault.

How is it possible for the head of the government to not be held to account for 100,000 deaths? Does Boris Johnson possess some kind of magical superpower that allows him to avoid blame? Is it some kind of psychological "trick"?

On closer inspection, it seems that, indeed, it is some kind of psychological sleight of hand. Not only is Johnson able to avoid blame, but he is able to transfer that blame on to the victims of his own actions. 

The government have been blaming the public for the number of deaths from Covid for a while now, but now that has gone into overdrive with the government's newest extremely graphic scare tactic. 

Power without consequences

Let's remind ourselves how we got to this point. 

The government, headed by Boris Johnson, has, from the very beginning of the pandemic, consistently refused to use effective border controls to limit the spread of the infection into the country. This approach is almost unique in the world.

Boris Johnson then was late in implementing a national lockdown, by which point the virus had spread widely across the country. This tendency to delay the decision-making process has been a consistent and entirely avoidable pattern in Johnson's behaviour during the pandemic.

He then allowed Covid patients to be sent from hospitals to care homes, adding to the deaths the elderly and vulnerable. The NHS was left to struggle without any clear or consistent direction from government.

He told people to go to work in unsafe conditions (this is still true now, as the government does not enforce health and safety regulations in workplaces, while the NHS, and retail and hospitality sectors in particular, have had to work in poorly ventilated workplaces while dealing with large numbers of the public). 

It should also be made clear that many of the poorest in society are still going to work in unsafe conditions because they simply have no financial alternative; they are ineligible for any government support, so they have to simply choose between having enough money to feed themselves or the risk of becoming infected with the virus while at work. Many others are simply unable to get government financial help and no longer have any work at all, so are suffering in other ways.

When lockdown was eased in May, over the following months through till the winter, the government introduced a bewildering array of ever-changing rules that the public were somehow expected to follow.

At the same time the government encouraged people to socialise with others in the "Eat Out To Help Out" campaign, aimed at financially subsidizing the hospitality industry. This was later shown to have a significant effect on spreading the virus around the community.

Boris Johnson then encouraged people to meet others at Christmas time, being a significant factor in causing the dramatic second "spike" in deaths we are seeing now.

Boris Johnson claims to accept "responsibility" for the calamity that his decision-making (or lack of it) has created, while at the same time leading the public to believe it is their fault for the virus spreading.

With the undoubted success story that is the vaccine programme now taking precedence, it looks for all the world that Johnson will, as he has many times in the past, "get away with it". But the 100,000 deaths are a result of his decisions in government, and his government's decisions. Thus is the nature of power - that actions in government have consequences; in this case, 100,000 real consequences.

He will most likely escape blame, as he has before. This is the strange power he has on others - his magical ability to transfer blame to others, using his "lovable rogue" character to make people always want to give him the benefit of the doubt. He will lie again and again, and yet people still choose to believe him.

The blame game

Is there something uniquely-hypnotic about the effect Johnson's personality has on the electorate? His "superpower", if we can call it that, is to gaslight the nation; to lie, manipulate and disarm others with his persona - the "charismatic oaf" that the people will always forgive and excuse, allowing themselves to believe that it was really their own fault that 100,000 people died, for it couldn't possibly be the fault of Boris Johnson. 

After all, he is just the head of government, and the government isn't responsible for anything, is it? 

A last word about the media, who have been Boris Johnson's enablers for the past twenty years. Somehow, Johnson fits into their stereotype of being "one of us": as a former journalist (along with Michael Gove), Johnson has been charming his way in the right circles for years, his various mess-ups and controversies only adding to his fascination. 

In the media, The Daily Telegraph is effectively his own personal propaganda machine, with the Express and Daily Mail almost just as fawning. The same can be said for The Sun and The Times, who can always be relied upon to provide a sympathetic telling of Johnson's agenda. This covers the vast majority of the media that the electorate consume; the left-wing media here are sadly barely worth mentioning in terms of their actual influence on the psychology of the electorate; the populist press have the advantage of patronage and government connections in the influence on the electorate.

So Johnson, for all his failings, is likely to be secure in his position as "national saviour" for quite a while longer. This blogger did at one point think his days at the political pinnacle were numbered, but he seems to have ridden in perennial luck and come out of it with barely a scratch to his reputation.

On current trends, he may well even win the next election, if the Brexit calamity can be blamed on the EU and an unprepared business sector as well as 100,000 deaths have been blamed on his own electorate.

Boris Johnson: a Hitler satire "Brexit bunker" tribute act and funny fable to authoritarian comedy acts

 If Alexander Borisovich DePfeffel Johnsonov could be compared to Hitler, it would only be in the sense that he was a man destined for the greatness of his own ego. The "World King" became the ruler of Brexit Britain. As the Ayran dictator of the English master race, England was, under his guidance, fated for greatness. His boundless energy and optimism would whizz-bang the nation into orgiastic delight under his personality, as he flew the flag of Brexit, the cult that he knew he was destined to lead as soon as he decided to choose to write the article in favour of Brexit that would lead him to victory in the referendum (or not).

But he didn't want Britain to really leave the EU. He just wanted to back the losing side in the referendum, and lap up the honour in defeat at Leave losing the 2016 EU referendum, so that he could take Cameron's place when he stood down shortly before the 2020 UK election. That would leave Boris ideally place to rule and dominate politics in the UK for that coming decade, his place in history secure. Sure, he had no idea what he was going to do with that power when he had it, much like Cameron. But being Prime Minister was much more important than having a plan for the country.

But he went on and won the bloody referendum, didn't he? Him and Michael, Goebbels to his Hitler, had to look like they had a plan when they won. It was lucky in a way that the two of them managed to cock up the leadership battle after Cameron fell on his sword so that it was nasty Mrs May who took the fall for the mess of the negotiations. She was never suited to power either. May was far too serious, with her own neuroses that haunted her like demons in the dark shadows of power, lurking in the back of her mind. The Brexit demons got to her in the end, sending her slightly mad probably.

But not Alexander the great, the Ayran superhero! He was biding his time, allowing May to take the blame for everything that was going wrong. Everyone knew about his energy and hypnotic power. When May finally gave in, her soul broken by the Brexit monster, it was Boris' turn to demonstrate his vision for Britain, giving Brexit a personality cult that it truly deserved. For Boris would be Brexit's dear leader, with the drive and dynamism of a blonde Hitler but with a better sense of humour and minus the anti-Semitism! Sure, Boris was a womanizer, a liar, a casual racist and almost completely amoral, but at least he was a lovable rogue! And having Michael "Goebbels" Gove at his side was a stroke of genius: Michael playing the straight man and the dissembling propagandist to Boris' affable fool-cum-secret genius. 

Then there was Dom. He was the man who never smiled, and when he did. you had the right idea to run very far away. Dom was the Martin Bormann of the gang. The real power behind the throne. He was the real ideologue, even more than Michael or Boris was. Boris was just doing Brexit for the bantz. No-one could really do anything without Dom's consent, and Dom controlled access even to Boris. Dom allowed Michael to take over control of the logistics and media side of Brexit - for Michael was more of details man than the fantasizing Aryan leader - while Dom controlled the wider strategic vision. 

This was how they came to win the public's adulation so quickly, with the motivational rhetoric and simple solutions - "Take Back Control" became "Get Brexit Done". TBC, GBD. Easy. Now at the height of Dom's powers at this point, he was able to get Boris to replace his new finance minister with an even newer one one more amenable to their agenda.  It was all about GBD, and the economy was to become a tool to the might of Brexit.

But the great leader suffered a cruel twist of fate: at the pinnacle of his success, a great pestilence stuck him down like Thor's hammer. The Gods were cruel to the unbelievers, and Boris had not prayed hard enough to the Brexit sigil for the nation's Aryan master to be protected. Struck down and debilitated for a time, the nation lurched without his divine inspiration and leadership. Brexit Britain's foreign minister struggled to fill the place of Alexander Borisovich, and in this time even Dom "Bormann" Cummings lapsed in his focus, his sight failing him on the way to Barnard Castle. It was a dark time for the nation and the government.

When the leader came back from his respite there were many praising the return of the triumphant lion, waiting for the personification of the Brexit cult to inspire us all again. Alas, it was not to be. For the leader's health was not what it was; he seemed to lack focus, drive and certainty of purpose. He came to rely more and more on Dom while also limiting his own public appearances to a minimum. His sense of judgement, once sharp, had dulled and become fogged by indecision, paranoia and corrupt motivations. Those in the higher echelons of the party looked at the sclerotic and chaotic running of the government and saw a power play of personalities incapable of rational thoughts; for the elite had become poisoned by an amoral thirst for autocracy at all costs. And behind this most of all was Dom.

Murmurings in the ranks talked darkly of the time after the leader, for all could see that "the once-and-future king" was a ghost of his former self. Like May before him, something had sucked the life out of his soul. For her it was the essence of Brexit itself; for him it was divine intervention that had snatched away the essence of the leader's energy. Brexit it seemed, was a cursed cause. 

Who could take over the mantle of the Brexit sigil after the assumed saviour, Alexander Borisovich? Who was worthy? Some talked of Michael "Goebbels" Gove being the natural successor, given the longevity of his connection with the Ayran superman. But outside enemies were circling. Brexit Britain had few friends in the world thanks to the self-defeating fanaticism of its most ardent disciples. No-one wanted it to succeed; it was a doomed religion.

Now that Brexit was destined to ruin the country after all, once the dear leader himself eventually retired into obscurity, the leadership of the cause seemed a hopeless endeavour. Whoever took over would only act as an "Admiral Doenitz", there to formalize the death warrant of the Brexit death-cult. And few were willing to do that. There was no fame in surrendering the cause. Once it was all to "take back control", by now people were pleading to "Get Brexit Undone", to end the madness.

But the true believers needed a scapegoat, as they had used May before the dear leader. Michael "Goebbels" Gove was too cunning to allow himself that dishonour; better to coax another into the role. That way at least, the blame could be transferred from the fanatical ideologues that had ruined the country to another malleable cypher. That way at least, the flame of Brexit could still live on to be passed to another generation, and the brief glorious period of Brexit could be misremembered in myth... 

 

Coronavirus in the UK: a Brexit "stress test"?

A country’s culture tells us a lot about how it reacts to a crisis. When the Coronavirus hit Italy, the government put the entire country in quarantine (this literally being the place where the term “quarantine” was invented). When the Coronavirus came to Britain, the government’s approach has been one of “Keep Calm and Carry On” (as though stiff upper lip is a coherent strategy against a pandemic).

The advice the government is following comes from its Chief Scientist, who is in fact a behavioural scientist. This makes one wonder if Britain's official reaction to the Coronavirus isn't then turning into a kind of mass behavioural science experiment imposed on its population. 

Britain’s strategy rests not only on a lot of counter-intuitive thinking; it is also the dead opposite to what the rest of the world seems to be doing. Why?

Libertarian “behavioural science”

There is an attitude of “let things run their natural course” at work here, which is a mentality shared by proponents of laissez-faire Libertarianism. The “behavioural science” aspect of the government’s strategy is about “nudging” human behavior rather than through implementing drastic measures that could cause panic. In other words, the government wants the British population to be acquiescent and placid; fatalistic, almost, about the coming epidemic.

The government naturally has its own reasons for not wanting to create a panicked population, but the strategy here also seems to rest on some aspects of British culture as well. Fatalism and stoicism are two aspects of the British psyche that have been honed through different “crisis points” over the centuries, most recently the Second World War. Boris Johnson’s grave demeanour during these Coronavirus press conferences, feels deliberately designed to engender morbid acceptance of what is to come. In another (probably deliberate) way it feels like a quietly-knowing echo of the kind of “blood, toil, tears and sweat” of Churchill fame (which at the time definitely did not reassure everyone at all, by the way). Thus we have the national leader implicitly evoking the nostalgic spirit of “national struggle” and ultimate sacrifice, with the latter being seen as an inevitable consequence of the former. Those at the most risk, the elderly and the infirm, are already being made to be seen by the wider population as, to an extent, helpless victims of viral “natural selection”.

The scientific strategy seems to rest on allowing most of the population to be exposed to the virus naturally, with people’s own immune systems given time to fight it off. In this sense, the government seems to have already accepted that the health care system is unable to cope, and is encouraging people to “look after themselves”.

The fact that this strategy goes against all the official WHO advice and the responses of most other governments in the world is telling. It tells us the British government approach is a combination of Libertarian thinking backed up by the fatalism inherent in the British psyche. One wonders if some in the government haven’t already seen the “learning potential” from taking this “ideological strategy” to a pandemic outbreak to see how the same strategy could be used across the country more widely to deal with the political effects of Brexit next year.

Coronavirus: an opportune Brexit “stress test”?

If people can acquiesce to losing, for example, potentially half a million people on the back of ideological “science”, what else could they accept?

The dark echoes that this fatalism to mass death leads to need no explanation. Already Britain is a country where homeless people are left to die on the streets or in seclusion in the countryside and some of the disabled live in starved penury; people acquiesce as people are made homeless and the disabled starve thanks to government indifference. Such things are accepted, so it isn’t hard to see how that same population could accept potentially half a million dead as “one of those things”.

This is a society that has been “nudged” for the last ten years to accept what was once unacceptable in a civilized society. The British government’s approach to the Coronavirus has all the hallmarks of being ideological in its nature, against the approach recommended by the world’s health authorities. The ideological project that is “Brexit” intends to radically transform the structure of British society. Already weakened by a decade of austerity and welfare “reform”, those social structures are only supported by a government that seems willing to let a viral outbreak dissolve much of what’s left of British society’s communal bonds. 

With so many already homeless, so many disabled left to their fate, why would care about the old and infirm dying in a viral outbreak? This would be Darwinian "natural selection" on a national scale.

By making people acquiesce to the idea of half a million dead as somehow “feasible”, it psychologically prepares them for the ideological mayhem that a Libertarian “Brexit” would inflict on them afterwards. Worn down by a decade of austerity and a year of viral deaths, whatever ideological plans the government has for “Brexit Britain” would be accepted as almost trivial by comparison. There would be no effective opposition left.

In this sense, there could be a very discreet (and deliberate) psychological strategy behind the government’s “laissez-faire” attitude to the Coronavirus outbreak (as their strategy is so plainly at odds with every other country’s): using the outbreak as a way to “stress test” specific structural aspects of society, while weakening public resistance to the radical (and at one time, unthinkable) social change to come afterwards.

The “national struggle” that the Coronavirus is now being portrayed as by the British government evokes the jingoistic spirit of Britain’s mythologized past on one hand and the stoic fatalism in the British psyche on the other. The acceptance of the radical ideology of Brexit after the national trauma that an ideological approach to the Coronavirus could inflict could well be something the government is banking on.

The “ideological laboratory” that Britain has been for the last ten years seems to be stepping up in its approach, with Brexit as its endgame; in the case of the Coronavirus, using Britain’s population as expendable “guinea pigs” seems like just the logical conclusion of that when applied to medical science.

Finally, there is the idea of the virus as a "test of national character". By being able to deal with the Coronavirus with its own ideological approach, it implies that Britain can deal with any kind of adversity. The mythology of Britain's supposed exceptionalism fits the Coronavirus outbreak into the narrative of Brexit.

Brexit ideology: the dangerous realm of cranks, crooks and control freaks

Brexit's detractors have never had to look far for evidence that "Brexit" was an idea that consumed the imagination of cranks. Linked to this is the tendency for many of Brexit's most vocal advocates being ideologues whose interests were in a more "flexible" interpretation of the law; such as using loopholes for the purposes of aggressive tax avoidance, and a more general desire to remove state power from the interests of an unregulated private sector wherever possible: "Britannia Unchained".


Cranks

This author has written before about the dangerous attraction that Brexit has to a myriad of ideological extremists and fantastical fanatics. These are people who have their own agenda to pursue through Brexit, and typically fall in to the camp of being either libertarian ideologues, racial nationalists or far left socialists.

We only have to look at the people occupying the most significant offices of the state, and the people whose advice they rely on. Most of the key positions in the British government are occupied by ideological Libertarians (of "Britannia Unchained" fame), or are advised by them.
The main with the most significant (and unchecked) real power is Dominic Cummings (more on him later). His clarion call to attract "weirdos" into the corridors of power tells us everything about what kind of "project" Brexit Britain has become: a vehicle for radical ideological and structural change of the country, of its priorities, and its place in the world.

In a sense this "change" might all sound exciting (and the Prime Minister is a skilled purveyor of the cult of charismatic enthusiasm). A look at the kind of "weirdos" Cummings is attracting to the highest levels of government tells us something much different, however: some of these are people who don't so much think "out of the box" as think the morally unthinkable, and are happy to say it in public as well. In other words, Brexit is an idea that attracts the morally unscrupulous (more on that below), as well as giving fuel to innate prejudices, dark paranoia and loopy fantasies.
Build a bridge across a three-hundred-metre-deep, bomb-strewn stretch of ocean? Sure! Engineering flights of fancy; dreams of Britain as a eugenically-purified nation of super-intelligent go-getters (thanks to a rigorous immigration programme of only the very best and brightest while also breeding out the native degenerates). In this kind of alternative dimension of being, Britain rules the waves, not as an imperial power of old, but as an island race of technologically-advanced geniuses. These cranks have truly become drunk on their own absurd propaganda.
All that has stopped Britain from ruling the waves, apparently, has been its own lack of self-belief. Britain outside the EU can literally reach for the stars.


Crooks

Then there is the attraction that Brexit poses to another plethora of "outside actors"; foreign interests that see Brexit as a corrupt opportunity to peddle their influence at the expense of Britain's own moral standing. Given the ridiculous levels of delusion present in the highest levels of government, it's no surprise that some outside the EU are looking at post-EU Britain as a turkey ready for carving.

Outside of the EU, Britain is already in talks with China and actors in the Middle East, for example. The farrago over Huawei is only a taster of the kind of things to come, as Britain faces a world that sees Britain outside the EU as a pygmy on stilts. Britain has no serious clout to defend its own interests; in this new plane of existence, it only has the power of its own lack of self-awareness, unaware that everyone else sees itself as an emperor with no clothes.

The things that Britain has to offer the global economy are its financial industry, the related  "fintech" industry, and the high regard of its education system. It is also good at making things that kill people, and is one of the world's centres for enabling tax evasion. Based on this, it is easy to see how post-EU Britain will become an ever-more nefarious magnet for providing high-end services to the globe's rogue states and criminally-minded mega-rich.

What else, after all, can Britain offer? It has nothing else that the world really wants. Think of it as Switzerland with a coastline, but one that can't even properly feed and house its own native population.


Control freaks

Presiding over this state of affairs are Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings.

The "bloodbath" of ministerial restructuring that heralded Johnson's ascent to the premiership (and the more recent one that took place the day before Valentine's Day) demonstrated his ruthless application of power. While Johnson can be charismatic, he is also a control freak; the latter trait he also shares with the chief adviser he brought in with him to Downing Street, Dominic Cummings. Johnson's idea of government is far more absolutist in its internal application than any previous Prime Minister in living memory; a populist tendency he shares with Donald Trump.

The difference to the egoism mania of Trump is that Johnson and Cummings seem to have agreed some kind of mutually-beneficial "pact", where Johnson delegates certain areas of policy and strategic control to Cummings. There had been rumours (such as over the decision over HS2) that Cummings' influence had been on the wane since the election in December, but those must have been well and truly squashed by the manner of forcing the chancellor Sajid Javid's resignation after being barely seven months in the job.
Cummings' malign influence had been responsible for getting Javid's own advisers removed the previous autumn, and it is now clear that both Johnson and Cummings see the Treasury, as well as some other departments, as simply vehicles of the prime minister's own strategy: there to tell him how something can be done, not if it should be done. Ministers that disagree cannot expect to be tolerated for very long. Cummings was already seen to be behind the extraordinary expulsion of more than twenty Conservative MPs from the party whip back in September (at a time when the government was already in a precarious position in parliament).
With Johnson at the helm and Cummings at his side, theirs was a partnership of convenience, with the adviser seemingly happy to play the role of sinister villain sidekick and Johnson as the "lovable rogue". Together, they achieved a lot and ripped up as many precedents in a few short months.
In this way, Johnson has made his premiership much more about a "cult of the charismatic leader" than has been known before in British politics. Theresa May's own attempts at "control freakery" were almost comically-inept by comparison. Johnson, with Cummings' at his side, has destroyed his political adversaries in short order, leaving him as a popular leader, with near-autocratic political inclinations.

Johnson's childhood fascination with ancient Greece, you wonder, might have a large part to play in this, with its chain of famed dictators, philosophers, lunatics and tyrants. Johnson's unstable upbringing and his near-constant necessity for praise and attention, leaves him with an ego that craves a desire for approval, as well as a desire to make his mark on history; to be a "man ahead of his time". This is something that he shares with Cummings, whose own sense of grand sweep of history allows him to indulge his own grandiose view of his own intelligence.
These two men are the ones in control of Britain's immediate future. They have used their skills to seize it, in a way that would have seemed unimaginable only a year ago. There is still an open question about what they will do with their near-unstoppable power, given their low regard for those that get in their way, and what they have done with it so far.
We may soon see.

Brexit psychology: the victory of delusion

"Brexit" is an idea based on delusions, both paranoid and fantastical.

The crowd that gathered in Parliament Square to celebrate "Brexit" at eleven o'clock on the 31st January were celebrating the victory of their own delusions. They were "free". They were free from European oppression.
What "victory" had they won? As summarized brilliantly by Tom Peck in the linked article above "what makes Britain’s independence day different from most, though not all, that have gone before it is that its prize is a freedom nobody else wants". Britain has become "the first country to throw off the yoke of an oppressor whom nobody else considers themselves oppressed by. We have won our freedom from our own imagined nightmares. We have liberated ourselves from the terrors of the monster under the bed that was never there. We are the children that never grew up"

Brexiteers have won freedom from their own imagined nightmares. Britain has freed itself from the invisible monster. St George has slayed the dragon that never existed. England is a country at war with its own shadow, a dog chasing its own tail.
You get the picture.

In Britain leaving the EU, the EU has also lost a valuable member. As Ian Dunt says "Britain joined late, but when it did it brought something unique: a caution which is needed in any grand project. That detachment is now portrayed as a sign that Britain never fitted in. It's nonsense. Any number of European states, except for perhaps Germany, could have succumbed to jingoistic populism. We were just the only ones stupid enough to hold a referendum on it. Britain's careful approach to Europe suited it and provided something valuable to the manner in which the project evolved"

One of the EU's missed opportunities was that Britain's involvement could have been used to rein in the political urge to continually crave for more and more "more Europe", with political decisions based on pragmatisn rather than ideology. Instead, we have had the UK as a EU member whose perspective was too often under-utilized, by itself as well as other member-states. Now Britain has left, its internal politics intoxicated by its own delusions, and the rest of the EU faces a populist insurgency slowly eating itself from the inside out.


Paranoid delusions

Those Brexiteer delusions mentioned earlier have been there for decades. There is a recurring sense that these are people who could only be happy if they have an enemy, even if it is one that is entirely illusory. George Orwell said a thing or two about that in Nineteen Eighty-Four, and it's a psychological trick that politicians have used down the ages. Technological advances have allowed them to refine their techniques, and the rise of populist rhetoric has seen the resurgence of that old chestnut, "the other". It can be any "other", as long as it can be used to take the blame.

What makes it different today is the use of "plausible deniability" by the populist leaders whenever their acolytes use that rhetoric to project harm. There's always the "nod and a wink" about populist rhetoric, from Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and all the others. If far-right violence and hate crimes are increasing, it's because of provocations from the other side, never from theirs ("there was blame on both sides" etc.). They are always "isolated incidents", except when highlighted to show how liberal society is failing. You can never argue against their rationalizing of violence, because they don't use rational arguments. 
The rhetoric of division serves a purpose - to provide an "other" to aim their frusatrations at, whether it be foreign plots (the EU's "agenda") or fear of loss of culture (immigration). With Brexit, the emotive argument used has been that Britain has been "humiliated" countless times over the decades by Europe, and more generally "held back" from fulfilling its greatness. 
While it's true that joining the EEC was originally a decicion based on the changing global strategic situation, the kind of "deal" that Britain has got out of it over the decades has been one that has involved various "opt outs" compared to other member-states (on Schengen, the social chapter, the rebate, the Euro etc.); in fact either proving Britain's more advantageous "exceptional" status with the bloc, or the ability of Britain to get more than should deserve. Either way, to other European countries, Britain's complaint of "bullying" by the EU looks like the complaints of a country with a dire lack of self-awareness.

The British print media have much to blame for this sense of eternal paranoia, or "Europhobia". The culture of pychologically equating "Europe" with the Second World War - also thanks to films and TV series - has led to Britain, and England in particular, with a sense of greivance against "Europe" totally out kilter with reality. The sense of the EU being a co-operative project is lost to them, with "Europe" used by David Cameron when it was necessary to prove his Eurosceptic credentials to the hardliners in his own party. The EU became the "whipping boy" of the British psyche, which ended with Cameron being eaten by the monster he couldn't stop feeding.
By the time of the referendum, the EU was being blamed for almost everything possible: from illegal immigration from the Middle East and Africa, to the closing down of factories in the North-east of England. Nothing was the fault of Britain's own government, if it could be conveniently blamed on the EU. 


Fantastical delusions

Similarly, Brexit supporters often sound like they ought to be sci-fi/fantasy aficionados. The vision they have of Britain outside the EU is one where Britain is able to transcend global rules and norms. 

In the same way that they fantastically blame the EU for holding Britain back for decades, they claim that "Britannia Unchained" can become a 21st century buccaneer: using language more commonly found in sci-fi fandom, they claim that Britain can be a pioneer in the tech industry (as though no other country has thought of it before), or can become a "supercharged" leader in space technology, for example. Why not build a Britain space fleet to colonize other planets, for that matter? Money is no object to them. No ambition seems too fantastical to hold.

Likewise, Brexiteers live in a world of 21st century make-believe; a fantasy realm where borders are frictionless even though there are no agreements in place to allow it. The Britain they imagine is one where the geographical reality of the country's berth right next to Europe is forgotten; instead of it being mere practical, financial and logistical sense to do the bulk of our trade with our neighbours, Britain should be imagined as a country where it is as logistically simple to trade with Australia as it is with Austria. 
Britain, in their eyes, is not tethered to Europe by geography at all, but is in effect a giant floating island, like "Laputa" in Gulliver's Travels, able to move around the world and trade with whom it wishes at will.  

All this is imagined because of emotional ties to the past. If these fantastical delusions are not permitted to happen, then it is the fault of Europe, or a conspiracy to "do down" Britain from within. Then the paranoid delusions take over to cloak the fantastical nature of their imaginations. These people are, emotionally-speaking, mere children in adult bodies. 

Brexit Britain is a country fuelled by the infantile instincts of a nation that has yet to grow up. Boris Johnson is, in this sense, the leader to a cult of age-regression.

Boris Johnson: the personality cult and "national saviour" narrative

After Boris Johnson’s first appearance at the House of Commons as Prime Minister, his general approach was dismissed by the opposition as “incoherent optimism”. This is as accurate a description of Johnson’s “free jazz” approach to dialogue as you may get, but at the same time, it exemplifies the problem that conventional parties have to tackling Populism as a whole. They cannot counter appeals to emotion with references to facts; it is an approach doomed to failure, for it misses the point. They do not understand the nature of what they are up against.

Johnson’s appeals to emotion are typical to Populism, with the important distinction that Johnson became London mayor eleven years ago using the same charismatic,maverick approach several years before Populism became a wider force in the world. It should also be mentioned that Johnson’s predecessor at the mayoralty, Ken Livingstone, used his own charismatic (left-wing) style to great success for eight years.

Love versus fear

Johnson has been compared to Trump many times before for obvious reasons, but there are also important personality differences worth mentioning too, and these affect their political style in important ways. The two men may well be Populists, but they are Populists of their own mould. Both men are narcissistic and charismatic,reckless and unprincipled. Both men have used their force of will to attain personal success by breaking conventions and engaging in amoral behaviour. And yet, although their careers have both fluctuated over the decades, they were always in an ultimately upward trajectory, until they reached the absolute pinnacle of power.

What is different about Johnson and Trump is what motivates them beyond the self-evident narcissism. Trump’s motivation stems from the instincts of a businessman. He is a swindler with the approach to ethics as straight-laced as a mafia don, and although he clearly loves attention, he doesn’t seem to mind what kind of attention it is; bad publicity is still publicity, after all. This indicates a very high (and very skewed) sense of omnipotence.

In this sense, Trump is the kind of narcissist that doesn’t care if few people love him or like him, as long as people respect him. He may be a difficult person to love, but a much easier person to respect; and he seems to have earned a kind of grudging respect even from enemies that hate him. If you can’t be loved, then at least be feared: this seems to be his “mafia don” mentality that he applied first to business, and now to politics.

Johnson’s narcissism, on the other hand, seems to stem from an innate need to be loved. Playing the buffoon and the clown simply for people’s laughs (and therefore affection) has been his singular style since becoming involved in politics.While he is by nature academically-bright and sharp-witted, his public persona has been to play the jester. 

This also explains why Johnson’s rhetorical style is subtly different from Trump’s. To borrow the phrase used at the start, compared to Johnson, Trump’s rhetorical style is more “angry incoherence” compared to Boris’ “incoherent optimism”. Boris wants to make people feel good, so that they will feel good about him. His use of high-flown rhetoric and pseudo-Churchillian prose are a strategic act and a psychological ploy. It is also clear that he is at his most comfortable when in this role, such as when inspiring Londoners during the Olympics or extolling Britain’s future prospects during the referendum campaign. With the oncoming event of Brexit, he is in the role of national leader continuing in the same motivational manner, exhorting others to combine with him in a collective spirit, and scolding the opposition for sowing doubt and disharmony.

The cult of Boris

Of course, by embracing such a faith-based belief system, the reality of Brexit hardly seems to matter to him. Boris has turned Britain into the archetypal personality cult, with him as its charismatic leader. This is where Nigel Farage and Johnson share the same instincts: they are both “Pied Pipers”, and along with Donald Trump, are an Anglo-Saxon Triumvirate of Populism.

In this way, Boris’ message is both dangerously seductive and terrifyingly simplistic. He has turned Brexit from an ideological “death cult” to an esoteric “sex cult”: his persona provides a motivational “force of nature” that infatuates the nation, making them love him for making them love themselves and love their country. The negative energy, and the anger and depression that Theresa May’s ghoulish tenure generated has been transformed by Boris into a kind of orgiastic national hero-worship.

It may still be Brexit “do or die”, but Boris’ rhetoric ability is to make it seductive regardless, and to make people love him for it in the process. To any right-thinking person, Brexit may well be a disaster, but to Boris’ supporters, it will still be a glorious disaster. Boris’ ability to channel all the stereotypical national myths into an evocative “Brexit” narrative is the spell that his supporters don’t want to end. Such a narrative would be even difficult for agnostic parts of the electorate to ignore. After all, it worked three years ago, so why not now, at its most pivotal moment?

The signs are that the anger that Farage channeled through his “Brexit Party” is now being dissipated by Boris’ singular rhetoric; his purple prose transforming the “betrayal” narrative into a narrative of national salvation. Boris’ emotive and bombastic talk in the House of Commons on his first full day in power left the opposition not only confounded but also dejected. As said earlier, they simply lack the political tools to know how to deal with it. The only answer is for them to find their own emotive narrative to fight back against Boris with, but they are too divided and lacking in a clear direction to know where this would come from.

This is why there is a temptation to go along with the “national destiny” narrative: that Boris, from a young age, was destined for greatness, regardless of his reckless and unconventional nature. The Churchill parallels are well-known, as well as knowingly well-versed by Johnson himself. Clearly, he has long been fascinated by the wartime leader, seeing the man’s ups and downs and long-winded career (and unstable upbringing) reflected in his own. Churchill was a deeply-complex (and often maddening) character, and his long career before 1940 was largely famed for its infamy, in spite of its longevity. Like Boris, the people that most liked Churchill didn’t know him; they only loved the myth. While charismatic, he could as easily be horrendous company. It was only the Second World War that rectified his reputation; so now, the man on the British five pound note is only remembered for his exploits during a five year period of war. The charlatan and drunk he was known as before has been forgotten.

Doubtless, Boris has similar hopes of national “immortality”. If he can get his government through Brexit, then his hope is that he stays in power for long enough that people will remember him for being the charismatic blonde-mopped icon in power at a time of adversity and national change and will have forgotten about any of the trauma and hardships (he created) that went with it.

Given his luck, he may well pull it off.

Boris Johnson’s government – the Brexit “coup” and the Libertarian agenda

Many people were worried that Boris Johnson was someone who didn’t have any idea what he was doing. From the way he has assembled his new cabinet, it’s very clear that he does know what he is doing – and that is what terrifies everyone but the Libertarian right. 

Boris, the man mocked as a “clown”, is clearly having the last laugh: like the “Joker” in the Batman universe, he has long given the impression being a chaotic anarchist without any kind of plan; but in reality, he very clearly does have a plan; a plan that terrifies his opponents. The blundering Boris “persona” was always an act to those who knew him well, and the manner of his assembling of government is the crystal-clear evidence of that.

He has assembled a government of ideologues, whose other key attribute is loyalty to Boris. This is not a “compromise” government, it is a government assembled for a mission:to leave the EU at the end of October, and embark on a “WTO Brexit” if necessary. In order to do, Boris has displayed not only his tendency for the theatrical, but also for powerful ideological statements. Boris has ruthlessly purged almost all the “old guard” from government – Theresa May’s natural instinct for preferring old, unimaginative white men, for instance – and replaced them with a cabinet of eclectic personalities that looks around ten years younger.

Those “eclectic”personalities are, put another way, a sign of how Johnson’s government (like himself) is one marked by mavericks and “outliers” (although there are also blunter ways to describe it, which may come later). This is the most obvious sign that Brexit is a Libertarian project, led by people from unusual backgrounds. Boris himself was born in New York, and lived most of his formative years in a nomadic existence abroad with his siblings following his father’s career around different parts of the world. His family’s background and make-up is already easily rich enough to merit a dramatic saga, without even looking into Boris’ own career.

The core positions have been given to people who, like Boris, come from eclectic backgrounds, with a common cause in being long supporters of the Libertarian agenda. The new chancellor, Sajid Javid, is the son of Pakistani immigrants (whose father, like Labour’s London mayor Sadiq Khan, was also a bus driver); the new foreign secretary (and also first secretary of state), Dominic Raab, is the son of a Jewish Czech refugee who fled the Nazis as a child; the new Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is the daughter of Hindu immigrants who fled Idi Amin’s brutal regime in Uganda. Then there is Michael Gove who, under the title of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (CDL) will be responsible for domestic preparations for a potential “WTO Brexit”, is the adopted son of a Scottish family.

The Libertarian agenda bleeds into almost every position of strategic significance, with arch-ideologue Liz Truss in the International Trade brief, and Andrea Leadsome in the Business department. Theresa Villiers, another Libertarian, takes over Gove’s position at the Department for the Environment. The “icing on the cake” of all this, though,  is seeing Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the ERG Libertarian faction in the party, becoming Leader of the House of Commons (and thus being a near-successor in this position to Leadsome). Meanwhile, the agenda to diversify the appearance of government likewise continues with men of Asian background being promoted to the Department for International Development and in the role of Chief Secretary to the Treasury (supporting Javid). The new party chairman, meanwhile, is black.

There are token positions given here and there to moderates (or Boris-supporting “Remainers”), but the overall complexion of the government (no pun intended) is one that is radical in ideology and diverse in its heritage. In this sense, it mirrors much of the make-up of the ERG faction itself, whose character is also eclectic, if not often downright odd.

But this is the point: Brexit, and the “hard” form that the Libertarian faction support, was always, by definition, a marginal cause, supported by people who never represented the values of British society at large. This was why the allegation that Brexit was effectively a Libertarian “coup” against British society stands even more valid now, looking at the people running the key levers of government. These are people whose agenda is one mainly supported by “cranks”.

Perhaps the most significant personality involved that backs this interpretation in all this is not someone in a government department, but who is said to become a key government advisor: Dominic Cummings. This is the clearest sign that Johnson’s aim is to bring the “Vote Leave” referendum campaign into government, complete with Cummings’ ideological pyromania – the “British Steve Bannon”, if you will.Things may well become “interesting” very quickly.

Apart from Cummings, it is clear that Johnson does not shy away from controversial characters (who’d have thought that?); this is further self-evident from promoting Gavin Williamson so quickly after being fired under a cloud of national security scandal, while similarly promoting Priti Patel after her controversial dealings with Israel. The message given out here is that Johnson values ideological loyalty and patronage first, and is not that bothered by (or maybe even secretly admires) unethical or destructive behavior. Given his many own examples over his career, this is hardly surprising. The same indifference to chaos is a characteristic that seems to run through the personalities of many in key positions in government.

So the Johnson administration is an assemblage of personalities designed for a purpose: to make Britain leave the EU at the end of October, regardless of the consequences. This is the government that Libertarians would have dreamed of having three years ago, had Gove not knifed Johnson at the critical moment in the leadership campaign. As it is now, it has been called the “Ferrero Rocher” Brexit government: Johnson spoiling the ERG by effectively creating their “fantasy cabinet” for them.

This all makes it clear the Boris is dead-set on destroying the “Brexit Party” and reclaiming as many of their supporters as possible, while seemingly indifferent to any flight in the other direction from moderates in his party to the Lib Dems. Johnson has set his stall with his choice of personalities. Perhaps he sees the strategic long game in how the Brexit may well eventually see the resurgent and ideologically-motivated Lib Dems replace a directionless and insular-looking Labour Party, and sees little point in fighting against the political tide; he simply wishes to forestall what he sees as the coming realignment by making his own ideological preparations. It would certainly be ironic if, a few years from now we have the Conservatives and the Lib Dems as the two main parties, given how they were in government together only five years ago.

Boris has cultivated the clownish image for so long that people have forgotten (or never knew) about the intellectually-gifted man underneath. His strategic method behind his agenda is clear from how he has chosen his government. His supporters, and the Libertarians, will say he is bold and ruthless; his detractors will say (justifiably) he is destructive and reckless. He can be both those things, of course. His strategy, if he is looking at the likelihood of an early election, may well be to – in the short-term – to deal with Brexit and the (divided) Labour Party as soon as practically possible. The chances of Johnson winning a majority in parliament in an early election may be higher than many people assume, given the stark difference in style and appearance his government will portray to the public. By contrast, Corbyn’s Labour Party is more likely to divide the opposition against Johnson with the Lib Dems and others.

The effect of this may well be not dissimilar to the election of 1983. It’s possible that Johnson has seen this as a possible (fortuitous) scenario as well, leaving him comfortably able to plan for the strategic long-term afterwards. Of course, any early election could also be a complete mess as well (the Prime Minister himself, as well as other ministers, could lose their seats); it could all go completely wrong and the Lib Dems could be the big winner out it it. But this is the risk that Johnson takes; and we know he likes taking risks from time to time.   

Whatever happens, it won’t be dull.

Brexit and British pathology: the "three men in a pub" analogy

I've reached the stage where it feels as though Brexit is government policy organised by three drunk guys in a pub.

If you've ever been in a pub during a week-day afternoon, when it is more likely to be populated by problem drinkers, you might recognise the analogy. After a few drinks, conversation inevitably descends to a few core topics, that all revolve around the issue of culture: sport, identity and history.

When not talking about football, rugby or cricket (depending on the men's background), conversation drifts to broader cultural issues: things like immigration, cultural assimilation of said foreigners, how the face of Britain has changed over the years, and so on. Linked issues like gender identity may get a look-in on the conversation. Of course, politics also runs through all of this as well, as issues of cultural identity also raise issues like Britain's wider place in the world. In short, the narrative can gradually devolve to one of men feeling dis-empowered in the modern age; somehow emasculated, and that a sense of Britain's decline is tied in with their own sense of losing pride in their male identity. Men together, after a few drinks, love talking about themselves, but always in a wider context of their sense of identity and culture. Things that they would never say when sober they feel free to say when drunk, as if their inner id has been unleashed.
This is one of the reasons that British male culture (or pathology) is so schizophrenic - they feel restrained by the wider culture into a certain type of taciturn modesty in everyday life, which then results in a kind of repressed "inner demon" being unleashed when drunk. It also explains the propensity for drunken violence so common on British streets after dark. This "pathology" is something I want to explore in more detail.


"Take Back Control"

This may all sound familiar (hopefully, it does). The "culture wars" that seem to have been unleashed by the forces behind Brexit are the same ones that are behind the wider rise of Populism, and the ugly undercurrent that is somehow "rehabilitating" the politics of Fascism. In a different context, the same could well be said for the rise of Islamic extremism.
Ultimately, it can be argued it boils down to a "loss of masculinity", for what these events all share is a primal desire for "men to be men". The rise of women's rights, the disruptive effects of globalisation and then the financial crisis all accumulated the core issue of loss of power. What this means in a British context (for that is the focus of this article) is about "taking back control", epitomised in the brilliantly-concise and innately-primal slogan of the "Brexiteers". This explains one part of why Britain chose to leave the EU. Apart from the wider cultural context (more on that later), the "Brexiteers" in government knew how to manipulate the "pathology" of the British psyche to make the referendum seem a question of British freedom versus European dictatorship. If we classify "culture" as meaning "history plus identity", we can begin to see how the "three men in a pub" analogy is something ingrained into the British psyche. It's no wonder that part of Nigel Farage's appeal was the constant association of him with a pint in his hand, thus subconsciously putting him on the side of the "man in the street" (or the pub). In a different way, Boris Johnson, as one of the leading "Brexiteers" in government, was able to inject his own brand of charisma into the referendum campaign, thus ensuring that the side for leaving the EU had all the most easily-identifiable personalities.

It was emotional appeals that won the day, rather than rational argument. Like how the "man in the pub" can never be rationally argued against without provoking violence, the arguments of those in favour of the EU were never going to win over the "Brexiteer" ideas that were all about "pie in the sky" thinking. There was never one moment when the arguments for leaving the EU were decisively shot down, because, in a way, there were no real arguments for leaving; there were only "beliefs". In the same way that an atheist can never truly win argument against faith (because it misses the point), Brexit is a faith-based ideology that requires a suspension of disbelief. We'll look at some of those "beliefs" below.


"This sceptred isle"

Part of the identity issues mentioned earlier naturally come down to national history shaping the national psyche. The obvious fact that Britain is an island plays a fundamental part to that, which leads to two well-understood "truths": a) that Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years, and b) that we have historically been apart from continental Europe.

Britain's role in the Second World War is still, seventy years on, an integral part of the national psyche. For the "three men in the pub", this is what our national identity is all about, and fundamentally shapes our relationship with Europe. The fact that the country wasn't invaded during that war (as well as Dunkirk - more on that later  - "the plucky underdog") emotionally stands for a lot to "the man in the pub". It infers that Britain is different (i.e. "special"). This lends itself to a complacency about life in the modern world; that because Britain was able to stand apart and free in the Second World War, suggests we'd be able to do the same again today. Because Britain was a victor of both World Wars, it infers that we'd be a victor in the world again today. The fact that all this was possible through a combination of luck, happenstance and outside factors is ignored. In a sense, Britain's experience of war in the 20th century was cosmetic compared to that experienced on the continent.
In the industrial era, Britain never experienced mass displacement of refugees, entire cities levelled, or real starvation. It has never experienced a real "national humiliation", like many nations of Europe have. It has never experienced Fascism first-hand, either. It is this "luck" that the "man in the pub" confuses with "destiny", and therefore adds to the complacency that supports his "pie in the sky" assertions over Brexit, as well as his faith that Fascism could have never happened in Britain anyway.
To take a more recent example of this complacency, Britain winning the Falklands War was, to a large extent, pure luck. If Britain had lost that war (which was always likely), the sense of national humiliation would have been profound. The Thatcher government wouldn't have lasted long, and Britain's national psyche would have been shattered. But we won, and so Britain's belief in its own indestructibility continued to the present day. A "Hard Brexit" would be a real test of that indestructibility.

Likewise, the fact that Britain's success as a nation came about through world empire rather than entanglements in Europe is another part of the narrative for "the man in the pub". Even the term "Brexiteer" sounds vaguely romantic, like the word "buccaneer", evoking the travails of Britain (or more exactly, England) as a vibrant, sea-faring nation of the world. This goes back to the time before Britain's involvement in continental wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, while looking at more recent centuries, evokes instead the successes of the empire. Put in this light, Europe's closeness to Britain feels almost incidental to its history.
More generally, historians understand that Britain's relationship with Europe is complex. While in general Britain's role on the continent was often as a semi-detached observer, it has had a part to play in Europe for centuries, even if only for the self-interested reason of maintaining the balance of power. This is exactly one reason why Britain joined the EU in the first place: to maintain its influence on the major players from inside the club, rather than as an impotent outside observer. But Brexit relegates us to exactly that role, if not worse: by our actions turning ourselves into a "troublesome neighbour". Again, the "man in the pub" is not interested in the wider picture or the more strategic outcome: he is only interested in defending his narrow sense of self.


"The plucky underdog"

As mentioned earlier, there is also an element of the "Dunkirk spirit" to the British pathology and Brexit. For some reason, British psychology is to "stick up for the underdog", which is also an integral part of our sporting culture. Wars that the country has been involved with have often had an element of needing to side with the "bullied" underling in the conflict. The most glaring modern example was being on the side of Serbia against Austria in the First World War (although Serbia was the clear aggressor in being a state sponsor of terrorism against Austria), while it was Germany's invasion of Belgium (as a path to attacking France) that was the ultimate trigger for British involvement.
This strong sense of a "moral code" and right from wrong is a part of British psyche. One reason why many British people still seem set on their course to leave the EU come what may is due to this feeling that to back out would "betray" the point of the vote. No argument can be reasonably put against this belief, as it is exactly that: a "belief". The vote was cast, we are leaving, and that is that. To backtrack on that would be anathema.
Another part of British pathology is the celebration of the "glorious failure". Going back to Serbia, this nation is one glaring example of how "glorious failure" can utterly dominate its pathology. Defeat of the Serbs by the Ottoman Turks in 1389 at the Battle Of Kosovo was given a moment of glory when one of the battle's last acts was the death of the victorious Sultan. Thus although Serbia was defeated, it went down fighting in glory. And this is what led the Serbia's emotional attachment to Kosovo, and all the bloodshed there in the late 1990s.
Dunkirk was a famous example of Britain's "glorious failure", and it is that "Dunkirk spirit" that has shaped the narrative around Brexit. It may be difficult, the "Brexiteers" admit, but it will be glorious. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, they might say.

This kind of emotional hyperbole is typical of "the man in the pub".


"No Surrender"

This is the masculine tag-line that seems to habitually crop up in belligerent news articles about the Brexit negotiations. It evokes the Churchillian rhetoric of the Second World War, that also melds with the same attitude that more recently punctuated "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. The psychological result is something that sounds more like the drunken chant of football hooligans on tour in the continent than a coherent strategy; a juvenile stubbornness that comes from a deep-seated sense of insecurity.

When his brittle sense of self is threatened, "the man in the pub" reverts to these age-old emotional crutches. To cave in to other people's demands would be unacceptable; compromise a sign of weakness, and anathema. To back down is unthinkable. This is the same kind of masculine fragility that led to historical disasters the world over.


"Make do and mend"

"It will be fine" Boris said reassuringly about Brexit during the campaign.

Again conjuring Second World War symbolism, the "Brexiteers" conjure up Britain's past in order to describe its future. The misty-eyed perspective of "the man in the pub" looks back fondly to his youth and the "oldern days", and looks at the grim reality that it was through rose-tinted spectacles. Because Britain has a culture of "making do", it implies that even if Brexit is a disaster, people will get by and manage, just as they did during the war.
Sometimes it feels as thought everything about Brexit somehow relates to how things were "during the war". The feeling that people might somehow benefit from "lean times" also explains how many people were once highly-supportive of austerity, as though there is some innate virtue in self-deprivation.
This is another aspect of British pathology that is hard to get to grips with, or to understand its origins. Could it have its cultural roots in the "Puritan revolution", now given a second breath of life as Brexit? Going back to the masculine analogy of earlier, Brexit is also seen emotionally as a way to make people "toughen up" after having softened from years of the good life and European luxuries. It is this line of thought that leans unfavourably into the realm of Fascist ideology. Given long enough, and the drunken conversation of "three guys in a pub" will enter into realms such as "survival of the fittest", cutting away society's dead flesh by one means or another, and the restoration of the death penalty.

This is the real "Brexit Agenda": the drunken fantasies of boorish louts.

Theresa May's Florence Speech and UK Brexit strategy: An abusive relationship, or a wrecking-ball?

The author had a "lightbulb" moment when thinking about a suitable analogy that sums up the psychology behind Brexit and where it comes from.
Britain has been in the EU for over forty years, during which time its relationship with Europe has been about promoting what can most kindly be described as "British exceptionalism": finding ways to have "opt-outs" on EU policy and strategy, with what can also be described as a "having a cake and eating it" approach. This led to Britain opting out of Schengen, the "Social Chapter", and the Euro, to name just three major examples. By the time  This finally led to Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, deciding the best way for his party to resolve its psychological "culture wars" over Europe was for the country to have a referendum about it. And now that Britain voted to leave, the government's strategy seems to be to continue this psychology of "having its cake and eating it".


Britain's "mid-life crisis"

The analogy that came to my mind was this: the mid-life crisis.
Britain is like the long-married husband with the wife and two kids that suddenly, when he reaches middle-age, decided he needs "freedom".
Britain's "exceptional" relationship with the EU has been like the over-bearing husband that is continually bridling against his loyal wife's wishes for them to spend more quality time together, rather than him going to the pub with his mates every other night. His relationship with his children (read as Britain's relationship with EU citizens) at turns fluctuates from loving to resentful. Agreed, his wife can seem too smothering at times (EU regulations!), but she also provides a stability to the man's innately unsettled psyche.
Until, suddenly, the man declares he needs "freedom", and walks out on his wife and children, leaving the question of their combined financial commitments hanging in the air. Will the man continue to contribute to the mortgage? Unclear. Will the man agree to take care of the kids? Unclear. The husband, after then walking out, incredibly claims his wife ought to helping him to sort out the mess he's caused, because "this affects all of the family"; implying the kids's future is at stake, so his wife ought to be as accommodating as possible. In other words, using emotional blackmail to get what he wants. The husband, after all this, still claims to "deep down" love his wife, and wants to have a close and cordial relationship with her; he simply wants his "freedom" to play the field and no longer be tied to their marriage. Yet he still wants her to do everything he asks.

This, at heart, feels a good an analogy for Britain's relationship with the EU. Britain has been the "abusive husband" of the EU; now Britain wants out of the relationship, but, as Theresa May's speech implies, thinks that it is the long-suffering wife (The EU) who should still bend to her husband's (Britain's) abusive demands even after separation. This is government policy masking a psychological "mid-life crisis" of Britain's identity. There is no reason for - and plenty of reasons against - the EU submitting to these demands. Nobody with an ounce of self-respect would do so; indeed, Michel Barnier has already said as much. For the EU to agree to such demands would be to break EU law and its own principles. Yet this is what the British government expects the EU to do.


An abusive relationship

After fifteen months of government dithering and chaos over its Brexit strategy, Boris Johnson preempted May's advertised Florence speech strategy by publishing his own. This then led to the hastily-arranged cabinet meeting the day before the speech, seemingly to try and find some kind of middle ground between the Brexit hard-liners and the moderates, led by Hammond.
So the Florence speech is, by definition, some kind of fudge. It was always bound to be, as Brexit was always about doing what was best for the Conservative Party, rather than what was best for Britain. Cameron's own career was defined and destroyed by that same pathology. In the same way that the EU referendum was just a strategy to keep the party united, the same goes for May's Brexit strategy. It was never about Britain's relationship with Europe; it was about the best interests of the Conservative Party. It might seem odd to understand Britain's biggest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War as an act of Tory navel-gazing, but that's the reality. This Tory navel-gazing, and the myopic misunderstanding of the EU's stance, also explains why the negotiations are more likely to fail than succeed (more on that later).
As we now know, May has managed to (on paper) find a strategy that seems to appease both sides, the moderates and the "Hard Brexiteers": the offer of a two-year transition where things remained pretty much the same, except for formally leaving the EU, followed by a Brexit that leaves the UK outside the single market and customs union, in what appears to be the "hardest" Brexit possible.
Except that this all forgets the details, and the questions over the details are what will prompt a thousand and one questions from the EU. Because May has said, like in the "abusive husband" analogy, that she wants some kind of "bespoke" relationship, unlike anything the EU has currently with a non-member. The UK wants to acts like the "mid-life crisis" husband that wants a divorce, but still wants to share the same house as his ex-wife, able to bring home whoever he likes, and expects to not have to pay towards their shared financial obligations once legally divorced. And expects his ex-wife to help think up "creative" solutions to the many obvious practical problems this entails.

So this is the form of "abusive relationship" that Britain's government hopes to achieve with the EU: one where the EU does all the hard lifting to get the divorce terms the divorcee wants - a divorce that Britain instigated because it demanded its "freedom".


A wrecking-ball strategy?

The negotiation process has been referred to as "stalled", and the strategy that May put out offered no real solutions to the causes of the "stall" - over money, citizens rights and Ireland. In some ways, they represent a "Gordian knot" of epic proportions; no doubt part of the reason the exit terms were written the way they were in the Lisbon Treaty, because no-one would want to leave under such terms. The "Gordian knot" appearance to the negotiations was also written in as part of the terms in the Lisbon Treaty; the EU is simply following its own manual, as previously set out. But before the referendum, the "Brexiteers" were blithely dismissive of such issues, and never mentioned Ireland's complex situation at all.

For all of Theresa May's words in Florence, and how she thinks this strategy offers a fine compromise for Britain, this is irrelevant if the EU simply says "no". And there's plenty of reasons to think they will. This is a negotiation, not simply about Britain saying "this is what we will do". If it expects to be able to do that, then Britain will leave the EU in 2019 with no deal at all, and no transition.
Firstly, this strategy offers no solutions to, for example, Ireland. Britain expects the EU to help to come up with a solution. In fact (and this is where it gets really hilarious) the EU did offer a solution: for Northern Ireland to stay separately in the single market. But the DUP would oppose anything that suggested a difference from the rest of the UK, and because the government needs DUP support to stay in power, the government must say no. This is another example of the "Gordian knot".
Apart from the unresolved questions over other payments (not those that May mentioned), is the sticky issue of citizens' rights. We should remember that in order for negotiations to continue to the next stage (to discuss the future "bespoke" trade relationship), these three issues must first be adequately resolved. And the clock is ticking, as the EU likes to remind Britain. In reality, the more time there is stuck on these three issues, the less time there is to talk about trade. But as Ireland's future trade status is also tied in with its citizens' rights, here we have yet another "Gordian knot": you can't really discuss one without the resolving other, and vice versa.

The clock is still ticking. According to the EU, it would take six months to ratify these terms (more on that in a moment), so the cut-off date to conclude negotiations is in around a year's time. First of all, Britain is expecting the EU to agree to some kind of as-yet unspecified "bespoke" deal in whatever time they have left before this time next year, once they have somehow resolved the three issues mentioned earlier. Britain has offered no solutions to at least one of the three issues (Ireland), and the other two are unclear.
Assuming that - somehow - the complex "bespoke" deal Britain calls for is agreed by this time next year, and the EU is - unbelievably - fine with this, we then have ratification. And this is where it might get really interesting, because all 27 countries have to agree, including the EU parliament. Individual countries could then, quite legitimately, raise all kinds of concerns. Indeed, some already have. Apart from Ireland, there is Spain, who may well wish to raise all kinds of hell with Gibraltar. So it's quite possible that any deal would be vetoed at some point in the ratification process. The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind.

Theresa May's call for a transition might be useful, but this does nothing for the negotiations. A two-year transition does not mean we will have two more years to negotiate our future trade deal. Whatever deal Britain wants must be agreed with the EU by this time next year, or there will be no transition at all, and no deal at all. Any potential extension to negotiations could only be agreed after a consultation, which would require the agreement of all concerned parties. Again, this seems like cloud cuckoo thinking if Britain thinks this is likely.
Theresa May also persisted with the idea that "no deal was better than a bad deal". This implies that the British government seems to think they have the upper hand. She would be willing to leave in 2019 without agreeing terms if she didn't like what the EU offered in return, and thus (it is implied) "call their bluff". But this has the logic the wrong way around. The EU has the upper hand in the negotiations, as it can simply turn down any proposal that doesn't fit to its wishes. It is up to Britain to provide a deal agreeable with the EU, not vice versa. After invoking Article 40, Britain had a two-year time frame to a make a deal with the EU. But Britain seems intent on looking for a deal that the EU would find it impossible to accept. So at this rate, the failure of the talks in the short time frame given seems guaranteed.
Besides, the UK government seems to have put in its excuses early: by asking for the EU's flexibility and creativity over Britain's impossible demands, the government can then blame the EU's "intransigence" over a failure of the talks. But as mentioned earlier, the whole "Europe debate" in the Conservative Party was always about managing how things were at home: as long as the British electorate could be fooled into thinking everything was all Europe's fault, then any problems that occurred post-Brexit would never fall at the government's door.

This is what has this writer thinking that the more intelligent "Brexiteers" have already figured all this out: any "bespoke" deal is practically impossible in the time frame given by the Lisbon Treaty. They are putting forward a negotiation strategy that they know will fail as they want Britain to leave the EU in 2019 with no deal. They want a "Hard Brexit" as soon as possible, and are happy to use a "wrecking-ball" negotiation strategy to get it. May's Florence speech said very little of substance beyond meaningless platitudes. What little substance there was said nothing that was not already known or could not have been easily guessed. On the details, there was almost nothing. On the final status, there was nothing but an unfathomable "Gordian knot" that would set up more negotiation problems for the future, on top of the lack of solutions for the current problems still unresolved.

The odd thing is that some Brexit supporters are currently panicking that Theresa May has "sold out" with her Florence speech. Some have called her position "surrender", or even compared it to "appeasement" by Neville Chamberlain. This is hyperbolic nonsense. On the contrary; while the offering of a transition period pacifies the moderates, in reality the overall strategy seems to make a "Hard Brexit" in 2019 all the more likely, given the complexities of the situation as explained above. If there is any "appeasement" on May's part, it is towards those that favour a "Hard Brexit". And if the "Brexiteers" are incensed by even the thought of a transitional phase, then their pernicious influence on the government will surely ensure that the negotiations fail. And they are bound to provide further caveats and conditions to their support for any EU deal between now and the end of the negotiations, putting Britain's government in an even more impossible position.

What are the "Brexiteers" worried about? Their "Brexit Agenda" seems well on track. It's everyone else that needs to worry.