Brexit: from referendum to coup d’etat.

In the space of twenty-four hours last week three influential Tory MPs –  Anna Soubry, Nicholas Soames and, less directly, Dominic Grieve – talked about a national emergency and a ‘government of national unity’ in the UK following the country’s departure from the EU.

This followed close on the heels of Labour’s Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, declaring that:

“It’s not a question of Labour trying to bring the Government down, it’s actually a question of Labour trying to help the Government get a good deal and try and stop the Government bringing itself down.”

Since then some Labour MPs have supported the Tories in the House of Commons helping the government to win a narrow victory by a margin of just 16 and we know Labour is already badly divided (as are the Tories) on the issue of Brexit and many other issues since Corbyn’s election.

Almost simultaneously there is increased discussion about the likelihood of a ‘No deal Brexit’. Everyone from the boss of Amazon UK to Jeremy Corbyn to the British Foreign Secretary are talking about the prospect of Britain ‘crashing out’ of the EU and even civil unrest.

London Times 23 July 2018

Article 50

However the crucial issue arises when you consider that it was never necessary for the UK to trigger Article 50 in order to leave the EU according to highly respected former Swedish judge and professor of international law, Ingrid Detter de Frankopan. According to de Frankopan by triggering Article 50 in March 2017, the UK placed itself at a disadvantage in negotiating with the EU. In effect it meant that the EU could effectively decide the terms of the UK’s departure. It handed the EU a veto over the terms of departure.

Prof. de Frankopan with Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in 2017.

Instead Prof. de Frankopan argues that Britain should have declared it’s intention to leave without triggering Article 50 and the EU would have had to sue for terms putting the UK at an negotiating advantage. After all the UK is hardly at a disadvantage. It supplies the EU with 14% of its revenue.

Yet in all the narrative we read and hear you could be forgiven for believing the EU has Britain over a barrel and is playing hard ball with an incompetent and floundering British Government. But that is only because the UK’s government willingly put itself over a barrel in order to play the role of the fool…….for a while.

If in doubt about the narrative in the mainstream media Google for UK criticisms of Michel Barnier to see what you are provided with.



UK media coverage of EU Negotiator, Michel Barnier

The consistent narrative in Britain’s own media is how a reasonable Barnier is trying to cope with a dysfunctional British government. Unusual behaviour when you consider how pro-government the British media normally is.

Why would any government allow itself to be put into such a position?

The truth is this is all part of a game plan being run by Britain’s ruling elite.

What we are witnessing in Britain’s apparent humiliation at the hands of the EU, is nothing more than a piece of elaborate theatre with a sinister twist in the final act.

I believe the British state’s intention from the beginning of these negotiations was to create a narrative and a set of scenarios that will force Britain to leave without a deal while painting the EU as unreasonable and creating favourable circumstances for a ‘government of national unity’. It goes as follows:

Brexit: From Triumph to Disaster

A Play in Five Acts
All the world’s a stage

Act 1

The UK struggles to come to terms with the surprise referendum result. There is great shock and confusion. In the midst of this the UK triggers Article 50 forcing it to negotiate on the EU’s terms because the received wisdom is that a ‘No Deal Brexit’ would cause untold chaos and enormous damage to the British economy.

Act 2

The British Prime Minister calls a snap general election in an effort, we are told, to get a stronger negotiating hand (even though she already has a comfortable majority in parliament). The result worsens her parliamentary position. From this weak position she must negotiate ‘Brexit’.

[Notice that there never has been a real prospect of a re-run of the referendum to get a different outcome. If the  deep state wished the UK  not to leave the EU a re-run would have been staged by now, as the Irish were forced to do in 2001.]

Act 3

The UK’s approach throughout the negotiations, because of its weak parliamentary position, appears to be confused and floundering. In contrast, the EU maintains a positive image (especially in the British press) and appears to be in the  driving seat, potentially forcing the underdog – the UK – into a damaging deal for its people. Relationships become acrimonious as the apparently incompetent UK Government struggles to get a favourable deal from its weak position.

UK society is fractured into two new opposing camps: ‘Brexiteers’ and ‘Remainers’, each demonising and reviling the other. The Conservative government is held in increasingly low public esteem for its poor handling of the negotiations.

Act 4

At some point towards the conclusion of the ‘negotiations’ influential British voices arise threatening the people with the previously unthinkable: a ‘no deal Brexit’.  Simultaneous to this are threats of civil unrest if there was no deal. Therefore, because this government is too weak to manage the fall out from no deal, there will be increasing calls for a ‘government of national unity’.

Final Act

The UK will withdraw from negotiations because of the unreasonable behaviour of the EU. It will also unilaterally withdraw from the EU. A government of national unity will be put in place under a new Prime Minister. This will be a coalition between the Tory party and right wing elements within Labour.

Labour will be split in two and the threat from Corbyn will be neutralised. Corbyn will remain leading a Labour rump on the back benches. If there are any further general elections and this is by no means certain, they will be fought by the national coalition as effectively a single political party.

A hard border will be an imminent threat in Ireland.  The shock of this will be used to renegotiate Ireland’s position in relation to the UK and the EU. An exit from the EU and re-entry to the Commonwealth by Ireland will be the outcome sought by the British.

Why else are the British royals building bridges with the Irish?

And the Irish political establishment reciprocates.

This new government will lay the blame for all of Britain’s ills on the EU because of the manner in which their unreasonableness forced Britain to withdraw without a deal. A new continental enemy will be created so that the people do not go looking within.

Disaster Capitalism

This outcome could not have been achieved if the UK had followed a more considered approach:

  • Not triggered Article 50
  • Negotiated from a strong position as a major economy and contributor to the EU’s budget
  • Not called a snap general election in June 2017, hence forward negotiating from a weakened position

But it was never intended that Brexit would be a straight forward matter and a triumph for British democracy. A bright new future for an independent nation was never on offer.

It was always seen by the Deep State in Britain as an opportunity to create a very different Britain from the one promised to those who voted for the UK to leave and, just as important, to simultaneously destroy the immediate threat from Corbyn’s Labour to provide a real alternative to the established order. It’s a well used strategy that has come to be known as ‘Disaster capitalism’.

So far the plans are proceeding on course.





Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s