The psychopathy of Brexit

Allegedly, according to Bloomberg, unless there is a trade deal within a week, Brexit trade talks are likely to flounder to no deal.

A very bleak prospect.

This outcome would, I suggest, be the most monumental act of self harm, perhaps ever, in British history.

I fear that Rees Mogg’s father – remarkably, a former editor of the establishment ‘Times’ has it right in his son’s terms. They want to break countries and their governments in order that individuals (aka very wealthy individuals) can be ‘independent’ of government – and so that individualism can reign regardless of national – or even international (UN/EU) government control.

Just look at this summary:

The individuals, who actually support this are surely just wealthy psychopaths.

Brexit is just the start of their scheme.

The rest of us are the ones that do not suit their ends…


    1. Peter May -

      Good link – Many thanks

  1. Michael G -

    If you will not pay for the rule of law, then you will not have the protection of the rule of law. Would he hire gunmen to enforce his deals?

    1. Peter May -

      I think the idea is that these wealthy people have enough money to bribe the appropriate people/ state to be compliant – just look at the donations to the Tory Party and the ‘results’ they achieve…

  2. Gerry Toner -

    I think it is Buchanan. His promotion of property as the basis of civil society is unchallenged by the progressive centre. While a flaccid and venal opposition mouths barely audible arguments there is no counterweight. Buchanan rises as a response to the success of Keynesianism and the neurotic rich and their fears for the pathological addiction to what is referred to as ‘wealth’. If we cannot have the courage to confront the preposterous idea of private property all of this ‘outrage’ will be noise. The human is a social animal and there is no ‘sovereign individual’. There is the sovereign, privately educated spiv individual from Eaton and other such places currently being given air time, like a toddler at a wedding. That type sponges on the rest of us like a cuckoo. Burn the palace down!

    1. Andrew Dickie -

      Thanks for the follow-up on Buchanan. As you imply, his views derive from a “pathological addiction” to private property.

      I omitted to say in my original post, that, given the dubious origins of private property (e.g. the enclosure = the theft of the public commons in the 18th century), such antisocial defence of the allegedly sacrosanct nature of private property is hard to defend, certainly to the extent Buchanan does.

      I haven’t read it, but I believe David Graeber’s “Debt – the first 5,000 Years” identifies the origins of private property on the arrogation by strong (i.e. bullying) individuals to more than their fair share. If that is so, there is even less reason to treat private property as the only value, as Buchanan does.

  3. Gerry Toner -

    Yes the Graeber work is insightful; however it was already known that the basis of property is physical force followed by legal power. I would argue however that the concept of property is itself preposterous given that there are so many diverse beings on the earth. Many of those would by tenure, numerical and body mass dominate any claims to ownership. It can only be if we deny the existence of other forms of being that we contrive such a ridiculous concept. I do say this as a home owner, fully cognisant of that fact and the impact of change arsing from its demise.

Write a reply or comment Comments Policy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *