I ought to warn you, Dear Reader, for this is a conspiracy theory. It has no basis in facts apart from my thoughts and observations and I’m going to present my case without a shred of empirical evidence; although I do assume that the evidence is out there just waiting to be found. But do also be warned, please, that only because it’s a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean there isn’t also a conspiracy.
Let’s cast our minds back to the 23rd of June 2016, when surprisingly enough the British people democratically decided to leave the European Union in the largest exercise of their free will so far – and dare I say for ever, for any plebiscite is indeed unlikely to be repeated now that everyone knows just how dangerous referendums can be.
This came after months and months of relentless campaigning to make everyone aware of what such a vote would entail: the sky would fall in and the land would turn to dust. The economy would fall off a cliff. People couldn’t go on their holiday, or return from sunnier climes. Planes wouldn’t fly, mobile phones wouldn’t work. And much, much more of the same.
More particularly: the UK would have to leave the fabled customs union and single market, the rather protectionist planned economy the EU has created in a vainglorious effort to give itself an importance it doesn’t really deserve.
An internal market which already accounts for a small and diminishing percentage of world trade, and a project that creates many of the problems the EU is failing to solve. Just look at the “refugee crisis” which is also a crisis of African farmers being locked out of the EU’s internal market, and with it out of an economically viable perspective.
Without the benevolent tutelage by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg, Britain would be reduced to what it presumably always was for remain voters: an insignificant and inconsequential set of islands off the coast of north-western Europe – makes you wonder how it had carried on for so long without the EU, doesn’t it?
All the upbeat doom mongering from the remain side slowly gave way to reality while during a long and arduous night the carefully crafted, sneering smile on David Dimbleby’s face withered away like a paper blossom that’s been pissed on. So far, so good, but what happened next was the greatest attempt at revisionism since Lenin stabbed the Mensheviks in the back.
After initially declaring his will to carry on in No 10 while he sorted out his Brexit strategy, David Cameron had to call the movers and head for a late morning appointment at the Palace, to hand in his resignation.
I suppose this happened for two reasons: A) he had no Brexit strategy and B) he might have delivered some sort of Brexit. Two assumptions which I would see as being grounded in his character which for all its pretentious snobbery always struck me as almost willfully naïve. Besides, these two assumptions are anathema to the Europhile British establishment and their paymasters at the EU, of course.
All that this sudden and quite embarrassing turn of events needed was a bit of clever camouflaging to make it pass for news. The Beeb were quite eager to provide enough spin by mumbling on about a very emotional day for the Prime Minister and a very personal defeat, along with the rest of it. The agenda media (Sly Noose, Why TV) duly followed suit. It could have been a right tearjerker if it hadn’t been delivered so contemptuously.
Next, the British public who had dared to upset the EU applecart and at the same time rock Shitehall’s boat a tad too much had to undergo thorough brainwashing at the hands of their media masters, a service the public had to pay for themselves – an unsurpassed and bitter irony in its own right.
What the chattering classes in politics and the media came up with was mainly semantic trickery, authoritatively defining what reality meant according to them. Even though one could rightly assume that reality could speak for itself and didn’t need an interpreter. But making the facts fit the fiction not only happens to be something agenda media are rather good at – it may also be the only thing they are good at.
First off, was the idea that the referendum wasn’t about leaving the EU at all. No, no, no! It was about “a new deal with Europe”, “a deep and special relationship” where the UK and the EU would be “going forwards together”. “The best deal for Britain” as it soon came to be known.
This bit of obfuscation seems to have originated somewhere in the Tory party HQ or No 10 itself. And of course, it flew in the face of evidence which suggested that on the ballot paper, there was no mention of any deal, just two boxes – one for Leave, one for Remain.
Then came the subtle distinction between “hard” and “soft” Brexit. I have said it before and I’ll say it again: much like being pregnant or round, “leaving” and “remaining” are absolute states. There are no halfway houses in matters like these. Just as much as it is impossible to be half-pregnant or half-round you cannot half-leave or half-remain. You’re either in the EU, or out of it. With all the consequences that this entails (see project fear for reference).
This shrewd bit of propaganda was the BBC’s masterpiece of dishonesty and they got it in very early, in to their relentless campaign to frustrate the democratic will of the British people; I remember it first being uttered on the weekend after the referendum and boy did they repeat themselves.
The next stage of Brexit revisionism was the condescending idea that “they didn’t know what they were voting for”.
This became the mainstay of those members of the chattering classes who thought Brexit was somewhat beneath them because it meant giving in to people who were dafter, lesser human beings than themselves. People who could safely be called all sorts of names because they had no hopes of fighting back.
These bullying cowards and their sneering contempt for humanity are best epitomised by all those pound-shop philosophers who thought themselves smart on Twitter although for all their expensive studies they still couldn’t understand that the fabled EU will never be able to give them anything back that it hasn’t taken away from them in the first place.
People who wanted the EU to pay for little Dominique’s place on the Erasmus program for studying his or her gender in Avignon, without realising of course that they had already paid all the services the EU (or any other government indeed) could provide them with through rather gratuitous taxation.
All these clever semantics were never intended to be anything but a blatant attempt of restoring the ancien regime, the old order where the media told the people what to think and the politicians told them what to do. More particularly, these attempts were aimed at reversing the referendum result at all costs and killing off all possibilities of the UK ever becoming Great Britain again.
Enter Theresa May, the common leave-voter’s angel of death. With hindsight, it is obvious that one simply cannot be incompetent and the head of the Home Office at the same time.
After successfully surrendering all efforts of abolishing indoctrination through the NUT at state sponsored British schools, Theresa May was just the person for the job. She had to nip Brexit in the bud much like she had nipped Michael Gove before. And she knew it.
The people had spoken, but she was going to tell them what they had meant to say. The era of “Brexit means Brexit” and more such platitudes dawned upon a British public who in their heart of hearts knew exactly why they wanted to leave the EU, and needed no one to remind them, thank you very much.
Finally, a plethora of precious snowflakes and a deluge of activists was released upon an unassuming public. It was all part of the somewhat ham-fisted plan to make people accept insanity as the new normal. But what could you say against Gina Miller without being called a misogynist and a xenophobe, especially when you had truth on your side?
I very much hope, albeit against hope, that the Tory rebellion led by that inebriated woman in the HoC was not only the low point but also the turning point of Brexit revisionism.
Although to judge by Mrs May’s track record of the last 18 months I wouldn’t be too sure she’s reached her nadir yet; she seems to have a raw and urgent penchant for lowering her own standards which of course makes her extremely well suited to the job of delivering a Brexit that will mainly be continued EU membership on slightly worse terms.
A result that is easily reversible after the next general elections, which could eventually see Jeremy Bin-Corbyn, Sadiq Khan or any other terrorist appeaser in office. And I still suppose this was the plan all along.
© Guardian Council 2017