At least since the 2016 Referendum campaign, we have been confronted with a lot of actions most of us would have thought unthinkable coming from people in government or close to it. Johnson unlawfully proroguing Parliament; or his Peppa Pig speech for instance; or Dominic Cummings ‘eye test drive’ to Barnard Castle. This week’s Brexit-related news brought us another shocker of that sort: Namely, Liz Truss publicly stating that the jury was still out on whether France’s President Emmanuel Macron was a friend or a foe.

Partly, I am relieved that I can still be shocked about what is going on in British politics. At least that shows that I have not started to normalise what is going on yet; and – as Emily Maitlis very forcefully and brilliantly showed in her MacTaggart Lecturer at the Edinburgh International TV Festival –  normalisation is what populists want you to do, because that is how we accept engaging in politics on their terms. So, a very personal ‘Brexit benefit’ for me has become the fact that now I am almost pleased when I am shocked about our politicians!

The reason why Liz Truss’s statement shocked me so much was that it encapsulates to perfection a process that UK politics seems to have undergone ever since the populist Eurosceptic far-right gained the upper hand inside the Tory party. That process increasingly seems akin to the psychological phenomenon of ‘age regression,’ i.e. the process whereby a person “revert[s] to childlike behaviour as a means to cope with anxiety or fear.” That process can be seen in Nigel Farage’s most famous moments when he sounds more like a teenager in the local pub than a nationally known party leader, or Boris Johnson’s above-mentioned infamous Peppa Pig speech; but none incorporates that regression better than Liz Truss. Perhaps because she was a Remainer and came to the populist game relatively late in her political career, she does not seem to take to the role of populist leader as naturally as Farage or Johnson for whom puerile bravado and boosterism seems to be the default mode. Truss’s attempts to imitate that, on the other hand, sometimes seem like an act rather than a natural reflex. But what she lacks in natural populist disposition, she makes up for with the zeal of a converted. That zeal probably explains why she does not hesitate to insult the head of a neighbouring country at a public event if it scores her some points with those people she has to convince of her nationalist-populist credentials.

More specially, her comment on Macron shocked me for two reasons: Firstly, it shocked me because it shows a complete and utter lack of awareness of one of the basic principles of politics (and life in general). Namely that with great power comes great responsibility. Truss seems unaware of – or unconcerned with – the fact that given her position her words carry weight and have real world effects. In the footage of the interview, she seemed so extremely pleased with herself for having landed what she probably sees as another great joke – just like the cheese quip a few months earlier. She seems completely oblivious of the fact that she currently still is our Foreign Secretary who, incidentally, leads the Foreign Office in the middle of the worst European security crisis since World War 2. Yet, the only thing Truss seems to care about is selling her right-wing populist and nationalist credentials to the Tory base who clearly – judging by the footage of the interview – frantically egg her on down the road of reckless jingoism. Truss has no sense of gravitas and displays shocking recklessness, like when she announces she was ready to push the button that annihilates the world if she had to. She is clearly willing to say anything to gain power, the worrying question for the world is will she be willing to do anything to keep it once elected?

Secondly, equally shocking, to me, was President Macron’s response to the comment. Everything in his response from the obvious exasperation that he had to engage with this sort of things to his understanding, but slightly patronising tone reminds one of someone scolding a child rather than responding to an equal. Six years of Brexit drama seem to have led Tory politicians into a pre-adult state where they ignore not just economic reality but also the basic rules of behaviour of their profession.

Age regression and the international order

Populism and Euroscepticism have always been part of the Tory DNA. Indeed, Prof. Time Bale argues that historically the Tories were leading rather than following UKIP in terms of populist Euroscepticism. But somehow populism seems to have changed from an electoral strategy mobilised when it seemed politically opportune into an out-of-control spell that afflicts all of Tory politics and increasingly escapes the control of any one Tory politician. As a result, UK’s governing party seems increasingly unleadable as Chris Grey puts it. This populist spell seems to drive the process of age regression inside the Tory party. Rather than serious discussions amongst adults about the key political issues of our times, Tory internal party politics of recent times remind one of a gang of rowdy teenagers that try to outdo each other by saying or doing increasingly crass and crude things to attract the most attention from the intended audience.

After Frost, Gove, and Johnson, Truss is getting ready to join the gang. This will also affect our standing in the world. While politicians like Tony Abbott and Donald Trump would have been supportive – or at least forgiving – towards Truss’s style of politics, conservative governments have been ousted recently in Australia, Germany, and the US, which will make Truss stand out even more on the international stage.

Indeed, part of the regression of British politics into a juvenile phase implies the rejection of the international rules-based system (IRBS). Just like a teenager struggling to accept the rules of the adult world, rebelling and revolting against them, Brexiter-led Britain has proven in the past years its utter disregard for the rules-based world order. To some – not just Tory voters – that may be a welcome development given that the current world order is associated with the contemporary problems of environmental destruction, unfettered capitalism, national and global inequalities that drive massive migration flows, and a host of other problems societies around the world are facing. But rejecting the idea of a rules-based liberal democratic international order due to the massive problems the world is facing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The liberal rules-based international order – while not normatively neutral – is what brings a bit of civilisation to an otherwise anarchic international order, reigning in countries’ worst might-is-right reflexes. What the alternative to a rules-based international order – however imperfect – is, is most clearly illustrated by Putin’s aggression on Ukraine.

Currently, it looks like, that as PM Truss would turn further away from cooperation with those allies that remain committed to the rules-based order. The issues around the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) illustrate this.

NIP

Some bad news related to the NIP reached us this week via HM Revenues & Customs who announced mid-week that British steel producers had to pay a 25% tariff on sales of some products to Northern Ireland. This is the result of a change to the EU’s tariff system in July, which saw the EU abolish the specific UK Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) and instead lump GB exports to NI together with all third country quotas into the ‘global imports’ category. In other words, UK steel product exports to NI are now counted towards the same quota as imports into the EU from the rest of the world.

This week, the EU’s global quota was exhausted (earlier than anticipated), which explains the new tariff. While the fundamental reason for the EU’s decision were the sanctions on steel imports from Russia, no doubt Brexiters will see it as EU punishment. Yet, it is simply a reminder that once you leave a club, the remaining members of that club are free to treat you like the non-member that you are. That is called ‘sovereignty.’ The only way to get better treatment is to rely on the members’ goodwill. Yet, goodwill must be earned. Trade expert Sam Lowe told the FT that the issue of the UK-specific steel quota could have been easily solved had the UK’s relationship with the EU been better. It seems obvious that publicly stating that you are not sure who your friends and your enemies is not conducive to such a good relationship. This is the sort of real-world impact of one’s actions and words that any politician should be aware of when playing to the domestic gallery. The fact that Truss is not or perhaps simply does not care is concerning.

Indeed, everything Truss has said so far about NIP suggest that she will not hesitate to escalate the tensions, making a negotiated solution to the issues surrounding the NIP very unlikely under her premiership. Thus, following strong words from the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding the NIP, she recently reiterated – in rather undiplomatic terms – her determination to go ahead with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (NIPB), the legislation Peter Foster calls the nuclear option, regardless of Washington’s view on the matter. Again, proving her hard-line Brexiter credentials to the domestic gallery seemed more important to the PM in waiting than re-establishing a good relationship not just with the EU, but also with the US.

This week, she did change course somewhat, when it emerged that she may trigger Art. 16 of the NIP as soon as she becomes PM. Triggering Art. 16 could constitute an alternative to the NIPB to solving the issues surrounding the NIP. Indeed, legal expert David Allen Green, argues that triggering Art. 16 would actually be a preferable option. Contrary to Brexiter rhetoric, triggering Art. 16 would not imply ‘ripping up’ the NIP. Rather it would start a ‘structured negotiation process’ following the mutually agreed rules under the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and the NIP. That is more in line with the UK’s obligations under international law than the unilateral approach that the NIPB represents.

Yet, hoping that that is what talk about triggering Art. 16 is meant as an alternative may be an overly optimistic interpretation. In fact, allies of Truss seem to consider Art. 16 as a complement – or temporary stop gap – to the NIPB, not an alternative to it. Indeed, whether pushing the NIPB through Parliament or triggering Art. 16, it seems obvious that Trusses now almost inevitable premiership will be marked by heightened tensions with the EU, although some still seem to see her as possibility more amenable to negotiations than Johnson was. Similar hopes had quickly been dashed when she took over from Lord Frost the post-Brexit relationship with the EU. In recent weeks, relationships with the EU have continued to worsen even compared to a few months ago when the two sides had at least managed to agree on a ‘stand still’ regarding the NIP. Indeed, the relaunch of legal action by the EU against the UK following the tabling of the NIPB in June and the launch of legal action by the UK over the exclusion from the science programmes both constitute steps down the road of conflict rather than cooperation. To leave that path, the UK government would need to start accepting that every snub, every provocation has an effect in the real world of international politics. Clearly neither Truss nor Rishi Sunak – who repeated the absurd claim that the NIPB would make it possible to have completely open borders between GB, NI, and the EU – are willing to do that.

The contagious effect of age regression

The age regression of UK politics into a state of childish sulking, throwing tantrums, and insulting the people you most depend on, starts having an impact on an increasing number of policy areas. As mentioned above, due to the UK’s refusal to fully implement the NIP, the EU recently decided to exclude the UK from various science programmes, which has led the UK to start formal legal action over the matter. Similarly, both Tory leadership hopefuls threatened that they would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights if the ECHR court opposed the UK government’s plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. This is another strong signal that the UK is rebelling against the rules-based international order and is willing to seek confrontation, even when such a move could have serious knock-on effects on important international agreements in other areas, as Peter Foster argues.

The other contagious effect of the ‘age regression’ of our political leaders is that it leads to a selection bias in terms of people in charge of key posts. In other words, an ‘age regressed’ PM will most likely seek out like-minded people for key positions in the government. This explains why there is now worrying talk about people like Suella Braverman and David Frost getting key positions in a likely Truss Cabinet. This will further reduce the UK’s ability to address the massive issues the country – and the world – are facing. Most importantly, perhaps, the SNP has warned that Frost getting a role in the Cabinet following his comments in a Telegraph column that the SNP ‘needs to be defeated not appeased,’ would be considered an affront.*

It seems hardly thinkable that a figure like Frost would have made it to the hights of British politics, were it not for the process of age regression, which makes him an unrivalled master of his trade rather than the mediocrity he really is. Frost, drunk on hubris possibly stemming from his own unexpected ascent, is the person who said that we must realise that this great country would be successful ‘whatever we do.’ No statement encapsulates the British ‘supremacism’ that underlies Brexit better than this one. It is also a massively treacherous ideology, which is entirely based on childish fantasies akin to believing in superheroes with superpowers rather than an understanding of the realities of the modern world and its politics.

Brexiter puerility was also on display on the ‘Facts4EU’ web page this week, which purports to provide evidence for the soundness of the economic case for Brexit. Ahead of a ‘Rejoin March’ planned in London for 10 September 2022, the web page reiterate its claims that Brexit was the right decision, because among all member states the UK benefitted least from Single Market membership. I have sought to debunk the way in which the post mispresents, misinterprets, and distorts the EU figures almost to the day a year ago (here). Here, I would just like to point out how the basic argument of the article reveals the same age regression as the other examples discussed in this post. The adult thing to do would be to consider that as long as the UK did benefit from SM membership (which is what the post suggests), membership is worth it, regardless of whether Luxemburg, Slovenia, or Sweden benefitted (proportionately) more. But that is not the Brexiter worldview. Brexiters are not satisfied with making the UK a better place, they will not be satisfied unless the whole world acknowledges that the UK is the ‘greatest country in the world.’ So, to a Brexiter, a win-win situation is not enough, unless the UK wins more than everyone else. Once that mindset is adopted by the governing elite, it makes for a very immature way of running a country.

The waiting continues

On a somewhat more positive note, while age regression can be a sign of a personality disorder, some psychologists do consider that age regression can be a therapeutic tool. Here the one silver lining may be that Truss’s juvenile craving for popularity may mean that at least regarding the war in Ukraine she may adopt a sensible policy. Indeed, Truss is currently popular in the Baltics and Eastern Europe due to her role as Foreign Secretary in Johnson’s Cabinet. In my view, his support for Ukraine is probably the one policy that Johnson did get right, and Truss is likely to continue that approach, if anything because it makes her popular both at home and overseas. So, there may be an unintended positive effect.

Ultimately, however, the attempt to retreat into a different time when people in Britain felt ‘loved, cared for, and secure’ will do the country a disservice. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more unpatriotic thing to do than behaving in the way leading Brexiters in the Tory party have done in recent years. As Chris Grey noted in this week’s Brexit & Beyond blog “[f]or all that talk of love of country, [Brexiters] profoundly dislike the country as it actually is and want the government to provide them with another one, preferably located a long way from Europe […].” Yet, there is no way around reality. Eventually, Brexiters will have to start acting like grown-ups. Sadly, this week’s events inspire little confidence that Liz Truss is the right person to stop the process of age regression of British politics. So, the waiting for a return to reason and sanity continues.

*As an aside, in his anti-independence piece, Frost also indirectly and in passing and certainly without understanding it, argues that Brexit was immoral. Indeed, he argues Scottish independence “[…] is morally wrong. Supporters of the Union in Scotland, people who have built their lives and families on the assumption of its permanence, should not be abandoned.” If that is the case, then how about the people who have built their lives and families on the assumption that the UK’s membership of the European Union was permanent?