HERESA MAY DOUBLE AGENT PART 1
EXPLOSIVE SLOG SPECIAL: HOW MAY WAS INSTALLED, HOW SHE HID DEFENCE TIES TO THE EU, HOW THE MEDIA LIED ABOUT THE OCTOBER BREXTENSION
In a triple-header of revelations today, The Slog assembles the evidence to condemn the Prime Minister as an anti-democratic, unconstitutional and enthusiastic supporter of Superstate hegemony and coordinated European defence. We trace her suspicious rise to power, the defence agreements signed during 2018 that nobody knew about, and how the media have been cowed into censoring the real nature of the October 31st Article 50 extension agreement.
Part 1: Quick, quick, slow
Things were odd from the outset of the Brexit saga. What ought to have happened turned out, again and again, to be replaced by something abnormal.
David Cameron handed a hospital pass to the British People in early 2016 when he announced that there would be a Referendum on whether to Remain in the EU or Leave it. He did so because he felt certain that Remain would win, and thus once and for all shut up the 60-90 influential Leavers in his Party….while arresting any chance that there might be a mass desertion by that ginger group to UKIP.
During the referendum, I was told by two sources (one in Washington, the other in Brussels) that the UK “would not be allowed to leave the EU”. The reason given to me was geopolitical defence considerations. I assumed they were referring to ballot rigging. When Leave unexpectedly won, I regarded the source information as almost certainly wrong.
With two weeks to go to the Referendum, opinion polls had begun to show Leave opening up an 8% gap. At that moment, Jo Cox was murdered, and the attacker tried and banged up with minimal publicity. Remainers milked the event, and the lead shrank to 3%. Here’s the poll of polls from the time:
Having lost the vote, Cameron nevertheless vowed to keep his word by staying on to see through the Brexit process. Within four days he was gone. No Cabinet coup against him was mentioned: he was merely (and suddenly) an UnPrime Minister.
Two viable candidates for the Conservative leadership then emerged. Andrea Leadsom – a confirmed Leaver – was known to have a clear lead among the activist vote. Theresa May was one of the longest-serving Home Secretaries in British history. She had shown herself in that role to be extremely happy to invent a new “crime” bafflingly called ‘non-violent extremism’. What she seemed hopeless at was blocking Jihadists from getting into Britain, and being located once they’d arrived. This enabled MI6 to continue declaring high-level emergencies, but not at catching those responsible for major incidents like the Manchester atrocity. Security agencies, after all, need dangerous enemies: without them, they’re out of a job….or at the very least, their budgets get cut.
Just before Mrs May became Home Secrtary, the Ministry of Defence in London produced a Top Secret document which described the “principal threats” to public order in Britain as follows: terrorists, Russian spies and investigative journalists. The last of these was described in the paper as the biggest threat. The leaker of this document was none other than Julian Assange.
This was the somewhat censorious and slightly hysterical culture our current Prime Minister found at the Home Office in 2010. During her term there, among other things, Mrs May presided over a phone-hacking plot in the British media that somehow managed to let every perpetrator but one (Cameron’s previous press secretary at Number Ten) get away. But it left the MSM media set in fear and disarray.
Andrea Leadsom pulled out of the race to become the next Conservative leader, saying it was in the “best interests of the country at such a time of instability”. Standing next to her when she made this unexplained departure from the contest was Steve Baker – a dedicated and heartfelt Leaver closely aligned with her campaign, and now still a determined Leaver with strong suspicions about Whitehall perfidy in relation to Brexit.
May having avoided the Leave-dominated Tory activist vote, 1922 Chairman Graham Brady bestowed the diadem upon her head.
In the weeks that followed, a number of decisions were taken, and people put in place. Leaver Boris Johnson became foreign secretary, but was immediately embroiled in (and thus distracted by) the Skripal poisoning farce and subsequent Russophobia that ensued. David Davis (also a Leaver) was given the task of negotiating Brexit, but within weeks it became obvious to his team that a parallel “negotiation” was taking place, headed by another May appointee from Whitehall, Oliver Robbins….a notorious EU federalist who had chaired the main pressure group for a United States of Europe while at Cambridge. Davis was also regularly thwarted in his attempts to build a properly accommodated team by the rabidly Remain Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond.
With the exception of Liam Fox, the rest of the Cabinet were Remainers of one ferocity or another.
Unelected Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 shortly before 12:30pm on March 29 2017…..more than seven months after her Coronation. No credible explanation has ever been offered as a reason for such a delay. We can be certain, however, that it gave the European Commission in Brussels some much needed breathing space in which to liaise geopolitically, and sort out its stonewalling strategy.
Despite this built-in advantage for a Remain Executive, it was rapidly made clear to May that both the 1922 Committee and the European Reform Group within the Conservative Party would be monitoring progress carefully. By April 2017, she was already having her ear bent by eurosceptics about foot-dragging at Hammond’s Treasury and obstructionism from Whitehall. There is clear and repeated anecdotal evidence that – in the light of a huge fall-off in support for UKIP and a Labour Party at war with itself – May was “advised” that, with an increased majority following a snap General Election, she could safely ignore the Tory Leaver minority. Almost immediately she called that election….with flagrant disregard for the recently passed Law making stricter Five-Year Terms the general rule.
A compliant media went along with the spin that a new influx of Tory candidates would produce more eurosceptic believers (this was nonsense) and also give her a stronger negotiating position with Brussels….an odd claim, given that Britain held (in terms of the trade deficit and its contributions to the EU budget) all the high face-cards. Bizarrely, UKIP campaigned only minimally, the idea being that most of its voters would support the Tories rather than solidly-Remain Labour.
All of these assumptions proved to be wrong, and a brilliant campaign of Corbyn sanctification from Momentum (spearheaded by a ground-smart social media strategy) resulted in the Tories losing their majority, and becoming dependent on a triumphant DUP for support. In the months following the DUP deal, the UK side became notably more strident about Ulster being treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom – which it has been since 1923 – but with an open border as per the Good Friday Anglo-Irish Peace Agreement. A complete unwillingness by Brussels to accept alternatives or time limits led to stalemate. But notably (despite her dependence on DUP support) Theresa May showed no desire to walk away and leave the EU without a deal. Observers were puzzled as to why this was, given a No Deal scenario would hit the EU far harder than it would Britain.
What most of those observers didn’t know (along with 95% of the public) was that, away from the Brexit spotlight, the Prime Minister was signing several European military unification measures that were in and of themselves certain to neuter any Brexit outcome.
Part 2 of this trilogy can be read HERE and Part 3 HERE
This brilliant article is from THE SLOG, (an incorrigible cognitive dissident). We can’t recommend this insightful and engaging website highly enough. Please pay it a visit for many more great articles
Disclaimer: UkReloaded.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Leave a Reply