I would like to update my essay which I wrote elsewhere in relation to what would appear to have been decided into relation to brexit by the powers that be in the United Kingdom.
Some of the claims are mere theorising on the basis of who is most likely responsible but the broad thrust of the argument would appear to be true in that there is a wish on the part of the establishment not to proceed with Brexit.
I had initially stated as a conspiracy theory back in December that people who were clearly ill suited to their positions had been appointed in order that decisions with respect to Brexit would be made behind the scenes by the civil service or perhaps the Queen. This is in fact partly true.
After the referendum on exiting the European Union, the then Cameron government who were none too pleased with the result came up with a plan to ensure that Brexit or at the very least a Hard Brexit would not occur. One might recall the episode of Yes Minister: Prime Minister to see how these things function in reality.
In effect the election is a second referendum upon Brexit without actually being a referendum in order to reverse the decision.
I am theorising of course as to who is responsible but it is likely that David Cameron and George Osborne through the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Haywood ensured that, given the result of the Brexit referendum, a Prime Minister would be elected who whilst she may perhaps be suited to the position was
1) Unlike Boris Johnson or David Davis had not been in favour of leaving the European Union and could not be said to be the most enthusiastic person to lead the implementation of the result of the referendum given her apparent set of instincts previous to the referendum
2) Would be for the most part hemmed in by two advisors who would act as the go between with other members of the cabinet and would ensure that appointments and decisions were made which would prevent any successful execution of Brexit.
To this end much of her stance which no doubt is one which has been reached on the basis of bad advice and which was meant to prove antagonistic is bound to be one which would not be successful. The decision for example to state “no deal is better than a bad deal” defies logic given the implementation and one might also like to consider the effect that the decision to opt for a hard brexit would have upon the higher education, pharmaceutical sectors and defence cooperation.
In addition, rather like the scene in the television series the rise and fall of Reginald Perrin when he wants to destroy his grot empire,
people who were entirely unsuited to particular positions were appointed on the basis of advice given by the civil service. Most notable in this respect are
1) Sir Michael Fallon, one of the worst defence secretaries ever to have held the post.
2) Boris Johnson, who whilst he might have made an excellent higher education secretary is clearly unsuited to the post of foreign secretary .
Certain members of the European Union may have been aware of this plan which is why there was not the degree of outrage as one might have expected even from Guy Verhofstadt. Additionally there was the appointment of a Briton as the security commissioner, Sir Julian King after Brexit which appears to be a strange decision given that the United Kingdom is apparently leaving and this decision appears to indicate the opposite of this.
After hardening of positions in the European Union along with a certain amount of unpopularity due to knowledge of the effects of Brexit, not forgetting of course the policies of the government with regard to austerity, the powers that be decided or had decided in advance that it would be an appropriate moment to engineer a situation where she would be deposed
They commissioned a poll which stated that she would win with a landslide and advised her that she needed a strong government in order to deliver Brexit in the difficult times ahead and should call an election. Again one might like to look at the following youtube clip about polls to see how they work in practice
As part of this George Osborne would “piss in the brexit tent” as it were by becoming an editor of a newspaper which would brief against the interests of the government (reduced since my post on the 1st), something which may be expected given his sacking by Theresa May which was no doubt engineered by the powers that be through advice given to the prime minister to sack him
The powers that be in the form of her two advisors chose to provide her with bad advice, primarily her mantra “Strong and Stable”. Given the decision to insert a policy which was so obviously bound to turn out to be subject to public outrage which was no doubt manufactured by the powers that be and the consequent commissioning of another poll which shows a huge drop in the gap between Labour and Conservative which itself led to a U-turn, this destroyed the believability of her mantra “Strong and Stable” and thus her credibility.
Then the decision was made to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to be narrowing the polls and that he would gain either a small majority (unlikely), a hung parliament or small majority for Theresa may (highly improbable). This in turn would lead to a situation where through more behind the scenes management by the powers that be, most of the socialist policies would not be implemented but a hard Brexit would not be. In particular it would not be possible to renationalise as far as I understand under the rules of the EEA, an organisation to which the United Kingdom would belong if a hard brexit does not occur.
Furthermore, given that to all intents and purposes the United Kingdom will be subject to European Union regulations and is thus an unofficial member without influence, it could be argued that people will state that it would be better to be an official member with influence and there will be a movement in favour of joining the European Union or at least not leaving.
Given this, I am somewhat puzzled by the allegation that Russia is somehow not a democracy when taken in comparison.
UPDATE: Having said this, it is difficult to forsee how this can proceed as originally intended which is why informed sources in the hope that Brexit will be bungled told Boris Johnson that he can keep his job.. One might expect a conservative majority given that
1) I published the apparent plan and originally wrote the full outline (the previous outline was very short and written the same day) on June the 1st in my electronic diary. Here is a screenshot:
Because it is being read by the intelligence services/civil service and their plan, because it is known, cannot be executed. The gap between labour and conservative appeared to widen again
2) Without going into details, it might lead to accusations that they swung elections elsewhere which would be damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom
An unlikely probability is that, if the plan to scupper Brexit without a majority is to still succeed, they will not be able to rely on polls to influence behaviour and will rely upon the increase in voter turnout (which pertains to the young and therefore labour voters)..