If you believed in Remaining in the EU, why would you want to become PM knowing your main legacy would be to have led the UK out of its 40 or so years of EU membership? Or is PM Theresa May motivated by power as an end in itself, at any cost?
Neither. Yesterday’s defeat was all part of PM May’s plan to thwart Brexit. Seemingly extraordinarily unfazed after the vote, joining her EU big-wigs in castigating MPs for only saying what they are against rather than what they are for, may have sounded superficially clever and hard-done-by, but wouldn’t any genuine and competent PM have managed to find that out in 2½ years?!
There are a number of factors which I believe shows that the current threat to Brexit – the plot, erroneously attributed to Mr Grieve and other Remoaners, which emerged in the National Media last weekend – is not, contrary to hoodwinked press commentators’ impressions, against PM May, but rather it is what PM May has intended all along. The most obvious giveaway was May’s threat, spoken well before this plot emerged, that MPs needed to support her Quislings’ Charter Deal or there mightn’t be any Brexit at all – leaving many, aghast at such a notion, wondering where that came from, given current legislation is clear that Brexit will happen on 29th March at 11 pm, with or without a Deal.
After Mrs May became PM, she visited many EU leaders and seemed to miraculously pacify their hostility towards Brexit: because she’d informed them she’d ensure a true Brexit wouldn’t happen? Even on the sports competitors’ approach of being foes on the field but best of mates at the bar afterwards, the closeness between PM May and Mr Juncker has always seemed too close for genuine negotiators: the recent ‘nebulous’ row now appears manufactured for the cameras which co-incidentally just happened to be in the right place at the right time, to keep us all off the scent.
The biggest evidence for my supposition is of course the Deal itself. Given the rest of the EU had clearly said this was the only possible Deal and they would not give any further concessions, why was the MPs’ vote on the Deal before Christmas delayed? I believe this was mainly to run down the clock, not towards a Brexit on WTO terms – the so-called No Deal Brexit – but towards PM May’s original plan of No Brexit at all. When PM May was prepared to repeatedly claim her Deal did things it patently didn’t, clearly her “Brexit means Brexit” soundbite has turned out to be as mendacious as many suspected at the time.
The only way of thwarting Brexit was to come up with a Deal which she deliberately allowed to be unacceptable, knowing it therefore wouldn’t get enough votes, as we saw spectacularly occurred. Voters will now likely be easily convinced that the EU 27 won’t agree to delaying Brexit to fiddle with a Deal which has been so roundly defeated, and also as there currently appears to be no option which will command a House of Commons majority. As planned, the Deal has produced the current chaos as a significant stage in PM May’s scurrilous plan to overturn Brexit.
With the only Deal on the table being so roundly voted down, that leaves only Brexit on WTO terms. While I disagree, as there appears much evidence to the contrary, I can nonetheless understand why the casual observer could be concerned at the prospect of the so-called No Deal Brexit, which of course Project Fear has played upon. Remoaner “Bollocks to Brexit is on my wife’s car” House of Commons Speaker Bercow’s declaration after yesterday’s vote that he will allow everything to be debated, was of course to facilitate the plotters’ plan to pass legislation blocking a Brexit on WTO terms.
This carefully manufactured stalemate is aimed at conning the public into reluctantly concluding that while Brexit seemed desirable in theory, PM May has tried her best to carry it out, but has found that in practice Brexit has proved, in the words of Blair’s spin doctor Alastair Campbell, “to be undeliverable”. PM May will hope that many of the population will then be glad not to be bombarded with Brexit in the news anymore, and thus her tacit real aim of her premiership, of thwarting Brexit, will appear to have been achieved.
Apart from breaking democracy itself, a potential weakness in this plot is that once agreed by Parliament, such a law to overturn a WTO terms Brexit on 29 March at 11pm would have to be approved by the Queen before becoming law. In short, asking the Queen to collude with the rest of the Establishment’s defiance of the Leave vote and of both the Conservative and Labour Manifestos’ promise to carry out Brexit, for which over 80% of voters voted in the 2017 General Election, by giving assent to legislation going against the democratic will of the people, could shatter the carefully built image of the seemingly less distant Peoples’ Royal Family over-night. In my opinion, in the interest of British fair play, Her Majesty’s moral duty would be to exercise the Royal Veto.
Having overwhelmingly voted out the EU/May Deal, I hope MPs will now find some additional backbone to further defy Feeble Appeaser Re-May-ner and, keeping their collective nerve, honourably adhere to their manifestos’ promises to carry out Brexit, by following existing legislation of a Brexit on WTO terms. Hopefully this will break the EU’s negotiating intransigence for the good of all: the other EU 27 and the UK alike.