The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Britain’s Brexit Brawl: Patriotism and Personality Types
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Three months before President Trump was elected, a meme appeared on social media calling for Queen Elizabeth to overrule the Declaration of Independence and “Make America Great Britain Again,” as this was surely preferable to allowing The Donald to become the US head of state. [Americans shun Trump and campaign to install Britain’s QUEEN as head of state, By Sofia Delgado, Express, August 14 2016] Considering the state of political chaos in which the U.K. is now embroiled over the imminent departure from the European Union mandated by the 2016 Brexit referendum, perhaps someone should start a petition for Britain to go the way of Hawaii—get rid of its monarch and become a US territory.

Not since the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Egyptian dictator Colonel Nasser took control of the Suez Canal, de facto British territory, has Britain witnessed such turmoil in its government. It’s been suggested that the Suez Crisis was ultimately reducible to psychology. For some inexplicable reason, Colonel Nasser and Anthony Eden, British premier at the time, just hated each other. Had that not been so, it’s possible that a peaceful accommodation might have been reached. But the personal hostility between the two leaders was so intense that there just had to be a war, which Eden (drugged-up and semi-deranged due to chronic illness) had to humiliatingly withdraw from because Eisenhower wouldn’t help. [Blood and Sand comprehensively destroys what’s left of Anthony Eden’s reputation, By Nigel Jones, The Spectator, October 1, 2016].

As far as I can see, a great deal of the crisis currently sweeping the British government can be reduced to similar differences in psychology, and especially upbringing.

But first some background. There is a very fundamental split within the UK’s Conservative government. The ardent “Remainers,” who, like former Prime Minister David Cameron, actively campaigned for the UK to stay in the European Union in the run-up to the referendum of June 23, 2016, have been pretty much purged from senior positions. So the split is between the “Cautious Remainers,” who wanted to stay in but diplomatically kept their heads down during the campaign, and the “Leavers” who are now allied with “Reluctant Remainers,” Eurosceptics (spelled that way because they’re a UK phenomenon) who voted “Remain” while holding their noses.

The robotic, uncharismatic Prime Minister Theresa May—known as the “Maybot” in the British press [Andrew Neil has BRUTAL summary of state of British politics – ‘Maybot NO mates!’, By Charlotte Davis, Express, November 16 2018]is in the former camp. Mrs May, who once tactlessly told the Conservative Party Conference that people saw them as “the Nasty Party” [Nasty party” warning to Tories, By Michael White and Anne Perkins, Guardian, October 8 2002] emerged as Prime Minister amid the political blood-letting of the totally unexpected “Leave” result. Though rather humorless, she seemed safe and competent.

The Tory Members of Parliament whittled down the candidates to May and a “Leave” junior minister, called Andrea Leadsom, whose names were to be put to the party membership. Leadsom could well have won the ballot of the (overwhelmingly “Leave”) party members had she got that far. But, inexperienced, she was subject to an MSM mugging in which a duplicitous journalist repeatedly asked her about her children until s he made a comment implying that because she had children, unlike May, she had more of a stake in Britain’s future, ergo May took office unopposed. [Andrea Leadsom pulls out of Conservative leadership race, By Anushja Asthana et al., Guardian, July 11, 2016]

All went well until May called an election, in June 2017, to beef up her small majority. Everyone assumed she’d win handsomely because the Labour opposition was in disarray. Its SJW membership had elected Jeremy Corbyn, a university-dropout, vegetarian, Republican, IRA-sympathizing Communist as leader, who was only strongly supported by the most eccentric (and minority) Labour MPs, including his former lover, Jamaican-descended Diane Abbott. Unfortunately for May, Corbyn proved to be a charismatic campaigner in contrast to the over-promoted, gaffe-prone “Maybot” who shunned TV debates and did not run a National Conservative campaign as expected but focused on Paul Ryan-type wonkery, proposing what seemed like a “dementia tax” meaning that elderly people needing social care would have nothing to leave to their children and couldn’t face down accusations that the election was unnecessary [Theresa May: 10 reasons why the PM blew her majority, By Alex Hunt and Brian Wheeler, BBC News, June 14. 2017] She lost her majority, needing to rely on Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a fundamentalist Protestant group, to get legislation passed

This week, May announced her agreement with the EU. It is an appalling betrayal of the referendum. Britain will remain subject to swathes of EU Law, potentially indefinitely, and pay a fortune for the privilege. Northern Ireland will only partly leave the EU, because it will remain part of the customs of union. And the agreement will be all but impossible to overturn. [What is in Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement?, By Holly Pyne, Talk Radio, November 16 2018] In scenes not witnessed in the House of Commons since the fall of Neville Chamberlain in 1940, the Prime Minister’s own MPs arose to accuse her of betraying the voters, to accuse her of being a liar, and to inform her that they would be attempting to trigger a Conservative leadership contest.

The lead DUP MP leader told the Commons that May likely no longer had his party’s support—because she was effectively breaking up the UK and turning the UK into a “vassal state” of the EU; meaning no majority; no laws will be passed.

Two members of her cabinet had already resigned—including David Davies, the Brexit Secretary supposedly in charge of the negotiations—before May even got to the Commons to make her announcement.

The Commons on Thursday was a bear-pit, the human struggle in the raw…and there’s something particularly interesting about the leading “Leave” forces in that regard.

During the summer, UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage stated that a lot of the “Remainers” are shielded from the damage the EU does to the UK, such as unlimited migration from Eastern Europe undermining the wages of the working class, because “They’re too wealthy.” [Triumph for ‘Brexiteer’ Nigel Farage, British scourge of the EU, Reuters, June 24, 2016] In this sense, the backgrounds of the leading “Brexiteers” in the Conservative Party are worthy of note.

They’ve suffered, especially at formative ages. And unpredictable suffering makes you instinctive—including towards our instinct to fight for our genetic, and thus ethnic, interests. It makes you prone to take risks, it makes you more prepared to be uncooperative; it sets you up for an unstable, unpredictable life.

All but one of the 12 leading Brexiteers and Eurosceptics in, or until recently in, the Cabinet attended “state schools”—what Americans call “public schools,” evidence that their upbringing was far from wealthy. And with those who are considered the most pro-Brexit, there’s a fascinating seam of early stress running through them. Dominic Raab, who resigned on Thursday, is the son of Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany and who probably instilled him with their own trauma. Esther McVey, who also left the cabinet on Thursday, was brought up in foster care. Penny Mordaunt dropped out of school as a teenager to a be a fulltime carer for her dying mother. David Davis was raised by a single mother on a “council estate” (= housing project). Michael Gove was adopted. Dr. Liam Fox was also brought up on a council estate. Priti Patel’s parents were Ugandan Asians who fled Idi Amin for England and established the stereotypical Asian newsagents, derisively known, when Priti was a girl in the 70s and 80s, as a “Paki Shop.” Sajid Javid spent his childhood in the flat over his parents’ “Paki Shop.”

Unlike many of the cabinet’s “Remainers,” with their private educations, these people have endured hardship at formative ages, helping us to understand the “maverick” and also evolutionarily adaptive identities which they seem to have adopted.

In many ways, Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of an East Midlands green grocer and Methodist preacher and whom the “Leavers” all idolize, was just such a person. An ardent if discreet Eurosceptic, she led a cabinet mainly composed of pro-European public schoolboys (British parlance for attending prestigious private boarding), with a smattering of Eurosceptic, lower middle class colleagues such as Norman Tebbit whose father, during the Great Depression, “got on his bike and looked for work and . . . kept looking until he found it.”

The only exceptions to this rule: Old Etonians Boris Johnson, who resigned as Foreign Secretary in July over May’s Brexit plans, and Jacob Rees-Mugg, who, though never in the cabinet, has been touted as a future party leader due to his cult-popularity grounded in his eccentricity, aristocratic genuineness and refusal to patronize the voters.

Rees-Mugg’s conservatism is so marked, even in how he dresses and speaks, that he is dubbed the “Member for the Eighteenth Century.” Despite his affable and calm exterior, being that conservative tends to be associated with Neuroticism (feeling negative feelings strongly) [Personality and political attitudes, By Alan Gerber et al., American Political Science Review, 2010] as does eccentricity in general [Eccentricity dimension of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory, By Lucas de Francisco Carvalho et al., Estudos de Psicologia, 2016] as well as an extreme degree of stifling Conscientiousness and thus aversion to disorder (See The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives, By Dana R. Carney et al., Political Psychology, 2008). So beneath Rees-Mogg’s beneath jolly exterior, he suffers. And he deals with this not only by being following our evolved instincts—he is an extremely serious Catholic, opposing abortion even in cases of rape—but by developing a superficially strong sense of identity, rooted deep in the history of his ethnic group.

As for Boris, who has a penned a biography called The Churchill Factor, he seems to be very much a latter-day Winston Churchill: charmingly clownish, unconventional, superficially genuine, not ashamed of his upper-class background and charismatic; but ultimately unprincipled and happy to take whatever side might be to his political advantage: Churchill switched parties twice.

Right up until the announcement of the Referendum, it was unclear which side Johnson would come out for. It’s widely agreed that his plan was to campaign for the Brexit so dearly desired by the “party faithful” and so get himself elected party leader, and thus Prime Minister, after Britain stayed in the EU and Cameron eventually stood aside. [Yet again, Boris Johnson has exposed himself as a self-serving charlatan, By Ian Birrell, Guardian, July 9, 2018] When the No Vote came through, Johnson was visibly in shock.

In many ways, the EU leaders are a similar “type” to Johnson. Power-hungry and Narcissistic, they have calculated that the best way to attain power in post-War Europe is to be anti-nationalist and pro-equality. But as they now form the Establishment, Johnson has made a different calculation.

The pro-EU faction in the U.K. seem to be motivated by a combination of a practical desire for money and, in the case of the Leftist mob, a child-like inability to cope with the idea that not everyone can achieve the same. According to The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives [D.R. Carney, Political Psychology, October 23, 2008] this personality type is characterized by low Conscientiousness and high “Openness,” the latter associated with being an artistic dreamer

But there’s an evolutionary dimension to this beyond the backgrounds of the key players. In July 2016, the Conservative Party wanted a “safe pair of hands” to sort out a “crisis.” But what we now have is in the British government is an extreme crisis, more akin to a war. On Friday, a number of Brexiteer cabinet ministers tried to calm things down by publicly declaring their support for May. [Defiant Theresa May rebuilds shattered government as Brexit crisis eases, By Laura Smith-Spark and Rob Picheta, CNN, November 16, 2018]

But it seems most unlikely that the Conservatives will tolerate this characterless, vacillating old vicar’s daughter at its helm for much longer. A new leader will emerge who has suffered, who has fought, and who will, hopefully, like the Iron Lady, bring this experience to fighting for the interests of the nation.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, Britain 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Miro23 says:

    In many ways, the EU leaders are a similar “type” to Johnson. Power-hungry and Narcissistic, they have calculated that the best way to attain power in post-War Europe is to be anti-nationalist and pro-equality. But as they now form the Establishment, Johnson has made a different calculation.

    Agreed that they’re opportunists the same a Johnson. Maybe he’s ahead of them, but when the trend reverses towards nationalism and closed borders they’ll switch to that. They’re experienced turncoats with luxury lifestyles to support, and they’ll cling onto power whatever it takes.

    Brussels is just a large scale version of FIFA (a corrupt bureaucratic feeding trough).

  2. Interesting piece about uncertainty in youth. Small business is the original precariat.

    There isn’t much discussion of the Remain leadership because there isn’t much leadership and never was. Remain support was ground up. There are a bunch of people in the wings waiting for the moment to strike but most of them are post career. Both main parties are led by Leavers. no promotions for Leave.

    Leave’s weaknesses is that 17.4 m people voted for 17.4 m unicorns but there can only be one. Meanwhile, the Remainers may have voted for a mule (although really wanting a horse) but it was a real and existing mule. If it ever gets to a vote on a specific variation of Leave against Remain, Remain will win because those who don’t get their favourite unicorn will stay at home or change their minds. It is not necessary to change many minds. The old (born before 1970) voted proportionately more for Leave than the young, by 20%.

    The difference was 1.3 m votes so 650 thousand plus a handful would be enough to change the result. That’s why Leave is so terrified of a rematch. Without a spike in illegal immigration to Germany to put on BBC News the support base has eroded. There is no spike and the producer who conflated the immigration stories is sacked.

    Given demographics, the Leave vote is shrinking by

    deaths*turnout*(Old-Young % vote for leave)/year

    533 000*0.71*0.2 = 76 000 reduction in Leavers per year

    So 150 000 net Leave losses since the referendum

    So 650-150=500 thousand people. These are all that is needed to take a Pro EU stance and Leave loses. Anecdotally I think most Leavers I speak to now look awkward when discussing Brexit. I think Remainers and Hard Brexiteers could unite to stop May’s version with a referendum on the terms. This would involve a Single Transferable Vote with a list of choices to be ranked 1, 2, 3. We at least avoid everybody’s worst outcome that way.

  3. The people have spoken. Britain has to honor Brexit vote.

    • Agree: jim jones
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    Lance Welton’s recent VDare articles have approached topics from uncommon and unusual perspectives. This one was no different in offering psychological profiles of Remainers.

    Usually I would dismiss this as engaging in egregious psycho babble. But since I agree with Welton’s conclusions, I’ll go along with it (at least for this one time!).

  5. Unusual perspectives here**


    Just repetitive discussions of XIX century.

  6. EMMA says: • Website

    Leave’s weaknesses is that 17.4 m people voted for 17.4 m unicorns but there can only be one. Meanwhile, the Remainers may have voted for a mule (although really wanting a horse) but it was a real and existing mule

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings