The Conspiracy Against Brexit—Revealed
You can call it the “deep state,” the “establishment” or simply “the great and the good.” Practically anybody who is anybody has spent the last three years working to stop Brexit and keep Britain in the European Union.
Only now, years after British citizens voted to leave the European Union, is the full extent of the conspiracy revealed. And the plot reveals a force working behind the scenes not just in British politics, but around the world.
For years, a rather vocal segment of the population has wanted Britain to leave the EU. The Brexit referendum was designed to shut them up. It was called by Prime Minister David Cameron—a “Remainer”—as a way of finally putting the issue to bed.
The Remainers thought they would win easily. After all, look who was on their side: every living former prime minister, every major political party, all the government agencies, the bbc, the Bank of England, all the major international banks, the International Monetary Fund (imf), the Confederation of British Industry, the president of the United States and a host of celebrities.
How could Brexit succeed against all that?
Just to make sure, Remainers stuck to one consistent message: Brexit equals catastrophe.
The Treasury said a “leave” vote in the referendum would trigger an immediate recession and that the United Kingdom would lose half a million jobs in the year after the vote. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said he’d have to call an emergency budget and raise taxes to cover the £30 billion (us$38.7 billion) hole Brexit would open in the nation’s finances.
The imf said a Brexit vote would provoke “sharp drops in equity and house prices.” The government claimed households would lose £4,300 a year, every year, for the foreseeable future. Barclays said the economy would shrink by 0.4 percent in 2017; Credit Suisse said it would shrink 1 percent. One expert on cnn said, “Lehman Brothers’ collapse could be as nothing compared to Britain leaving the European Union.”
Other experts predicted food shortages. The Food Research Collaboration forecast “major disruptions” to Britain’s supply chains. Across the country, sick people would die as they lost access to medicine.
Given all this pressure, many thought a Remain victory was inevitable. Even Nigel Farage, one of the Leave campaign’s top leaders, thought they had lost. The day of the vote, he said it “looks like Remain will edge it.”
Then the unexpected happened. More than 16 million voted Remain—but more than 17 million voted Leave. The 52 percent to 48 percent victory for Brexit gave the nation its largest democratic mandate in history!
The aftermath of the Leave vote exposed all the dire warnings as lies. Britain’s economy didn’t shrink by 1 percent, or even half a percent. It grew by 1.4 percent. There were no food or medicine shortages. None of the predicted calamities happened.
The day after the vote, pro-EU campaign groups called for a second referendum. It’s the EU’s tried-and-tested tactic. They used it after Ireland rejected the Nice Treaty, and when they rejected the Lisbon Treaty: You got the answer wrong—try again.
But pro-EU politicians could not embrace such a call so quickly. During their “Remain” campaign, they had emphasized that this was the one and only vote, because they had been confident they would win. “There are no second chances or reruns,” the Remain campaign office had said. Former Prime Minister John Major declared, “There will not be another referendum on Europe. This is it.” A government leaflet, sent to every household in the country, promised that the vote would be a “once-in-a-generation decision.” “The government will implement what you decide,” it read. For politicians to turn around and campaign for a second referendum the day after this “once-in-a-generation decision” would have exposed them as liars and hypocrites.
We now see that they adopted a subtler strategy. While saying they respected the will of the people and the result of the referendum, they worked to delay its implementation. Their strategy was to cause enough time to pass that they could indeed call a second “once-in-a-generation decision,” get the answer “right” this time, and keep Britain in the EU.
Nine months after the Brexit vote, Britain held a general election. Politicians had to make crystal clear where they stood on Brexit—and all the major parties said they would respect the vote. Pro-EU politicians knew that if they were honest about their intentions, they would be rejected by a pro-Brexit electorate. So they too promised to uphold Brexit. Here is a small sample of a mountain of similar statements from M.P.s:
“I was a Remainer, but the minute we start ignoring the democratic will of the people in this country, we are slipping very quickly towards the kind of banana republic I don’t want to live in.”
—Heidi Allen, then a Conservative, now jumping between several parties
“Nobody said, ‘Well you know what, I’m just not going to respect the result afterwards’—that’s the kind of thing that Donald Trump says.”—Yvette Cooper, Labour Party
“Many people voted Leave for genuine and respected reasons. We have to respect the result.”—Anna Soubry, then Conservative, now with the Independent Group
“The public have voted, and it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say: ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong. We are going to try again.’”—Sir Vince Cable
“We all have to accept and respect the referendum outcome. I campaigned to stay in the EU. I would have expected the result to be honored if we had won it.” —Sir Keir Starmer, Labour
But once these promises got them elected, these same members of Parliament proceeded to seriously disrespect the democratic will of the people. They worked to keep Britain in the EU.
Again and again, Parliament blocked any form of Brexit deal. Every one of the M.P.s quoted above has since supported either a second referendum or canceling Brexit without any kind of vote. They were elected under false pretenses.
Soon after the vote to leave the EU, the actual date for Brexit was kicked down the road. Officials insisted it would take years to unwind Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Brexiteers agreed to the delay. After all, Brussels’ pervasive control of every aspect of British law and lives was a major reason they wanted Brexit; if it took time to make a proper break, they reasoned, it would be worth it.
So Britain waited until March 29, 2017, to even begin the official process. This began a two-year countdown, with the deadline for actual departure set at March 29, 2019. While negotiations and delays continued behind the scenes, public figures began promoting a host of excuses for a second referendum: The public didn’t know what they were voting for. The Leave campaign was based on lies. The Russians did it!
The Electoral Commission, a supposedly neutral body designed to ensure fair elections, swung into action. Though it ignored any irregularities committed by Remain campaign groups, a young Leave campaigner named Darren Grimes was investigated three times—until the commission finally found one box he ticked incorrectly. They spent a million pounds trying to prosecute him. But the courts eventually cleared him.
The official Leave campaign also felt the sting of the commission. They asked it for advice on the correct, legal way to handle donations. The commission gave the advice, and the Leave campaign followed it. Yet after the vote, the commission sued the Leave campaign, saying its behavior was illegal—though the courts again disagreed.
The Electoral Commission referred Arron Banks, a significant donor to the Leave campaign, to the National Crime Agency. He too was completely cleared. The Leave Campaign has also been accused repeatedly of Russian collusion. In its investigation, the National Crime Agency also cleared Banks of this smear.
This has been a significant, though failed, part of the plot against Brexit. Remainers hoped to find an excuse to invalidate the election, to paint the whole thing as flawed so they could redo it. Former Labour Party Minister Ben Bradshaw said it was “highly probable” that Russian cyberwarfare caused Britain’s Brexit vote, and left-wing news outlets jumped on the idea. The Guardian, especially, has spent months gleefully peddling left-wing conspiracy theories about Russia. It even claimed that then-UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage ferried data between Donald Trump’s campaign and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on a usb stick as part of a Russian plot to steal both the Brexit vote and America’s presidential election.
Again and again these accusations have been proved false. But that doesn’t stop new claims from being made. It’s a desperate but potent effort to manufacture an excuse for a second referendum.
While the excuses rolled out, Brexit negotiations continued. Led by Prime Minister Theresa May (who supported the Remain campaign) and carried out by a civil servant who worked to stop Brexit, the two years of negotiations disappointed everyone.
May’s Brexit deal was unveiled in November 2018. “If M.P.s vote for this deal, we are bowing our neck to the yoke,” wrote Boris Johnson, then a backbench M.P. “We are preparing to take colonial rule by foreign powers and courts.” Like most Leavers, he had resigned from the government rather than support May’s approach.
Cambridge history professor Robert Tombs agreed. “It is practically unheard of in modern international relations for an independent state to place itself under foreign jurisdiction and foreign legislation,” he wrote. “One would have to think of colonial status (for example of the American colonies before 1776) for an adequate analogy.” The EU had effectively responded to Britain’s Leave vote by trying to turn the United Kingdom into a colony. As the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote, “No nation would normally accept such terms unless very small, or bankrupt, or first defeated in war.”
The deal failed in Parliament. Repeatedly. This left pro-EU politicians with a problem. According to laws passed in the months after the referendum, Britain would leave the EU on March 29, 2019. If Ms. May’s deal was voted down, then as the law stood, Britain would leave the EU completely on March 29 without a deal. Initially, May stuck to that hard deadline, trying to pressure reluctant M.P.s into accepting her deal.
The Remain M.P.s then launched a push to overthrow Britain’s constitution.
Britain has no single written constitutional document. Instead, its history of established rules and procedures are its constitution. That constitution clearly defines the roles of the government and Parliament. In general, the government initiates legislation, controls Parliament’s schedule, and conducts diplomacy with other nations.
In an effort to stop Brexit, pro-EU politicians attacked all of these powers.
M.P.s began an unprecedented push to control Parliament’s schedule, to decide what laws were voted on and when. Typically such a push would be disallowed. But the speaker of the house—the man who acts as umpire and plays a crucial role in upholding the constitution—was, until recently, John Bercow, a passionate Remainer. Bercow drives around with a bumper sticker using an expletive to describe how much he hates Brexit. When Brexit hit the agenda, he routinely ignored the advice of Parliament’s clerks and said that rather than be guided by precedent, we need “political and intellectual flexibility.” When convenient to his cause, he was a stickler for precedent and the constitution—digging up long-forgotten rules from hundreds of years ago. But if it would hinder Brexit, he would bend the rules to amazing degrees of “political and intellectual flexibility.”
The prime minister, reluctant to leave the EU without a deal, backed down and asked European leaders to extend Britain’s membership in the EU. As weeks passed by, it became clear she could not get any kind of deal through Parliament. On May 24, she announced her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party.
The party held elections for its new leader. On June 23, Boris Johnson was announced the winner, and he became prime minister the next day. He won by being the toughest candidate on Brexit, and promising to extract Britain from the EU.
Remainers reacted by intensifying their push to stop Brexit by any means necessary.
From day one of Johnson’s term, there has been a push to portray his prime ministership as illegitimate. British voters vote for a party, not specifically for a prime minister. The leader of the party or coalition that can command a majority in Parliament is prime minister. Many have come to power between elections. But because Brexit was in the mix, Remainers argued that Johnson was not a proper prime minister without an election.
“Boris Johnson has won the support of fewer than 100,000 unrepresentative Conservative party members by promising tax cuts for the richest, presenting himself as the bankers’ friend, and pushing for a damaging No Deal Brexit. But he hasn’t won the support of our country,” tweeted Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. He then posted, “The people of our country should decide who becomes the prime minister in a general election.”
M.P.s also swung into action to stop Mr. Johnson from meeting his pledge to get Britain out of the EU by its new deadline, October 31. Parliament seized control of its schedule and of British foreign policy from the government, passing a law stating that the prime minister must ask for a Brexit extension.
Remainers brought up all the same bogeymen they had used in the campaign for the 2016 referendum. If Britain left without a deal, the economy would crash. Every household would become thousands of pounds poorer. Shops would run out of food. People would die as medicine supply ended. It was, they claimed, their patriotic duty to stop Brexit.
They did this in cahoots with the European Union, a genuine example of foreign collusion in the Brexit debate. The former chancellor of the exchequer led his own talks with EU Brexit negotiators. The supposedly neutral Mr. Bercow met with EU officials to discuss the way forward. Former prime minister and ardent pro-European Tony Blair traveled Europe, meeting with national leaders. Parliamentary leaders working to stop Brexit got advice from abroad on how to word the legislation. Others sought Europe’s help on pushing Britain toward a second referendum. The foreign interference became such an irritant that the government considered passing a UK equivalent of the Logan Act to stop it.
The government tried to fight back against this parliamentary power grab by “proroguing”—similar to suspending—Parliament. An overwhelmingly pro-EU justice system then stepped in. The UK’s Supreme Court created a new law that limits how long Parliament can be suspended. Constitutionally it is the Queen, on the advice of her M.P.s, who prorogues Parliament. The Supreme Court, in making this new law, set itself up as the highest authority in the land, overruling even the Queen. Thus, suddenly, Britain now has an American-style Supreme Court that involves itself with the biggest political issues of the day—but without America’s balance of powers regarding the selection of judges.
Leavers weren’t alone in decrying the egregiousness of the court’s power grab. Channel 4’s Fact Check stated, “[T]he experts we’ve spoken to are unanimous: Today’s ruling is massive.” Prof. Tom Poole of the London School of Economics told the UK-based news source, “I can’t think of a bigger UK constitutional law case.” Historian David Starkey said, “The events since the referendum have broken the English constitution. They have broken it, shattered in pieces like a noble statue which has been pushed over and deliberately broken. It is an act of utter vandalism. And once it’s broken, I don’t think it can be put back together again. The last time we were in territory like this, it was settled by civil war.”
With Mr. Johnson’s push for Brexit blocked, the only way forward seemed to be fresh elections. But—despite implying that Mr. Johnson was illegitimate because he had not been elected in a national vote—Jeremy Corbyn fought against elections. Pro-EU M.P.s insisted they could only hold elections once a “no-deal Brexit” was off the table.
The situation descended into farce. The government could accomplish nothing and was repeatedly blocked on the most important item on its agenda. Finally, on October 29, Parliament voted to hold an election.
Back in 2017, all the major political parties had pretended to support Brexit. All promised to respect the result of the referendum. The two years that followed revealed the truth. No pretense is possible now.
So the Liberal Democrats now plan to completely cancel Brexit. Their manifesto states that if elected, they will pretend the referendum never happened. They will erase the largest democratic mandate in Britain’s history.
The Labour position is more devious. They promise a second referendum. But this won’t be a rerun of the first, because they are afraid voters might get the answer “wrong” again. Instead, a pro-EU Labour government would negotiate a new deal with the EU—one that keeps Britain tied to the EU even more than Ms. May’s or Mr. Johnson’s deals. Then they will give voters a choice between that deal, or staying in the EU.
It will be a choice between “Remain While Claiming to Leave” and “Just Remain.”
If they succeed, the elite will have finally successfully overridden the will of the people.
But this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The story of Brexit powerfully illustrates a global trend. In the United States, politicians are working to undo the election of a president they dislike. In Israel, the press and judiciary are trying to bring down Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Spiritual Cause
Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry discusses this trend in his booklet Great Again, writing, “Do you have a favorable view of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, separation of powers, rule of law, Manifest Destiny, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free-market economy, and America’s role in World Wars i and ii? If you do, then surely you are deeply alarmed by the state of America today. All of these pillars of American history and identity are being vilified and destroyed.”
The same trend exists in Britain, and for a common reason. “There is a spiritual dimension to America’s decline that most people do not see,” writes Mr. Flurry. “The crisis facing this nation is not because of a bad president! The cause is far deeper. But most people are unwilling to face it.”
In both countries, we see the same arrogance and power of the elites. “Before the last presidential election, these people just knew they would win,” wrote Mr. Flurry in the July 2019 Trumpet issue. “They think they are destined to ‘rule the universe’! In most cases, they are not elected officials, nobody voted for them, but they consider themselves the only ones qualified to govern. They cannot believe a ‘barbarian’ like Donald Trump became president, and they cannot take it! So they must overthrow him.” In Britain, they cannot believe that the barbaric average citizen voted for Brexit. So they must overturn the result.
“These educated elites are trying to overthrow the votes of 63 million Americans!” Mr. Flurry wrote (ibid). And in Britain, they are trying to overturn the votes of 17 million people.
“These individuals do not feel bound by the [U.S.] Constitution—the supreme law of the land! They have no respect for our Bill of Rights, which safeguards our freedom of speech and freedom of religion and protects us from governmental overreach” (ibid). The same is true in the UK. Events in both nations have made this trend clearer than ever.
“Since Donald Trump became president, the depth of lawlessness and corruption permeating America’s leadership, aided by America’s media, is being uncovered,” Mr. Flurry wrote. “If Hillary Clinton had won the last election, ‘none of this corruption would have come to light!’ But God wants it exposed! He is saving America temporarily—and one reason is to expose this evil” (Trumpet, November 2018).
The Brexit vote is exposing the same kind of evil. No one thought politicians were saints, but the length the pro-EU establishment will go to get its way against the will of the people is shocking.
There is a reason God wants the truth to come out. Notice what Mr. Flurry wrote: “God wanted that cancer exposed. We all need to think seriously about why—and the responsibility that puts on us individually!” (ibid).
An evil force is trying to bring down both Britain and America. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you cannot deny that there is a devil. And you cannot deny that Britain and America have been blessed by God. The devil is working against those blessings to bring down our nations.
“That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord,” God says in Isaiah 30:9, describing our modern politics. Where does all this lying come from? Christ called Satan the father of lies (John 8:44).
“God wants us to recognize Satan’s involvement and activity—so we can see the real danger, understand where it is leading the nation, and individually seek God’s protection against it,” wrote Mr. Flurry (ibid).
Satan is working to bring down America through the deep state. And he is working to bring down Britain through the European Union. The EU is simply a cloak for the Holy Roman Empire, a dictatorial power that has risen repeatedly in Europe to try to impose its will and religion on the world.
Despite these attacks, Britain and America have not repented of their sins and turned to God. They have not sought His help. Regardless, God has saved our nations temporarily. And He has been using this time to expose evil. The fact that there is a lawless, spiritual power working against Britain and America is clearer than ever. He wants our nations to see the danger and repent.
But there is no evidence that our nations are doing that. Without repentance, this resurgence will only be temporary. Satan’s wrath against these powers will continue.
But you can see the danger and turn to God. You can intensify your prayers and support for God’s work, and help get this warning message out.