The BREXIT conspiracy

According to vocabulary.com, “conspiracy theorists are people who believe that the government is secretly controlled by power brokers in flagrant violation of the constitution”.

I believe this definition is both too strong and too specific; a conspiracy is simply a plan conceived by two or more individuals with the specific purpose of deceiving society.

Indeed, it is possible to conspire for the purposes of convincing the public that something has (The Royal conspiracy of Jack the Ripper and the Titanic switcheroo) or hasn’t (JFK: the triangulation of crossfire and the deliberate manipulation of the electorate in the Brexit vote) happened.

Constitutionally inconclusive…

Most of us awoke to the news that the leave campaign had unexpectedly triumphed on Friday.

Come Sunday, the first story I heard on the radio is that a number equivalent to almost 20% of those that had voted to ‘remain’ had already ‘signed’ an online petition for a second referendum on the basis that the first one was constitutionally inconclusive.

I’m genuinely interested in hearing some responses to the following question…

Regardless of the way you voted, or would have voted, on Thursday, were you previously aware that, in order to be constitutionally binding, the minimum turnout must be 75% of the electorate and 60% of these must vote one way or the other?

If not, don’t you think it is a little unusual for the petition to be up and running with so much support in such a short space of time?

It smacks of a spouse murderer putting in a claim on a life insurance policy the same day that the act was perpetrated!

The newshounds among you are doubtless aware that the petition has been the subject of fraudulent signatories (some of these apparently residing in Vatican City!) but don’t let this sway your opinion. The 77,000 number is headline grabbing but this accounts for less than 3% of the running total, so the sheer level of support within the timeframe remains highly suspicious.

 Let’s not let the facts get in the way…

The Jack the Ripper Royal Conspiracy theory was first advanced by the late Stephen Knight in his 1976 best seller “Jack the Ripper: the Final Solution”.

This delightful yarn suggests that Prince Edward Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale and second in line to the throne, was in the habit of frequenting the streets of Whitechapel for his amusement. It was here that he met, fell in love, impregnated and married a working class Catholic girl named Annie Elizabeth Crook.

In order to cover up this embarrassment, the Queen’s surgeon, Sir William Gull, was consulted and, with the help of his fellow Freemasons, he murdered the witnesses to the ceremony who became the five victims of Jack the Ripper. Annie Crook herself was institutionalised because she was insane.

Annie Crook clearly existed and so did her child, but Edward Victor was not in the country during any realistic timeframe for the Royal impregnation to have taken place.

Annie was later institutionalised for frequent bouts of epilepsy rather than insanity.

Sir William Gull was not a Freemason and had retired from medical practice a year before the crimes because a stroke meant he no longer had full use of his hands.

Nevertheless, this entertaining drivel has been used as the basis for at least four movies that I know of. Indeed, ‘From Hell’ was shot years after the theory had been disproved and Knight’s principal source Joseph Gorman, who claimed to be the son of the artist Walter Sickert, had retracted his contribution.

However, what makes this a great story is that people WANT to believe it. Knight’s book is still being reprinted today and reviewers on Amazon continue to believe in its authenticity.

An attempted insurance fraud gone wrong?

Before I revert to the topic of Brexit, I just want to touch on another conspiracy theory that people love to believe in…

Those of you that are familiar with the story of the Titanic will appreciate that she was the second of three sisters. The Olympic had gone into service the preceding year and sustained considerable damage in a collision with HMS Hawke in the months preceding Titanic’s maiden voyage.

In his 1998 book “The Ship That Never Sank” Robin Gardiner proposes that the Olympic was damaged beyond sustainable economic repair. So, it was decided to patch her up, replace the name plates and send her out as Titanic and sink her on her ‘maiden’ voyage to claim the insurance.

One of the facts cited in support of this theory is that JP Morgan, chairman of IMM, which owned White Star, had intended to sail on the maiden voyage but cancelled his reservation after the plan had been hatched.

However, a quick glance of photos of Morgan taken at this time reveal an aging man who is clearly not in the best of health. Isn’t sudden illness a more realistic explanation?

There is also the question of who else among the crew knew of the plan?

Captain Smith was not on the bridge at the time of the collision. Was Murdoch the only other officer that was in on it?

If so, how could Smith know that they would encounter the berg when Murdoch was officer of the watch?

For that matter, if there was a scheme in place to evacuate everybody from the ship, how could anybody engineer a collision that would allow time for an evacuation, yet be sufficiently bad to ultimately cause the liner to founder?

All in all, I find it impossible to buy into this conspiracy, but, as is the case with Knight’s book, I fully understand those who want to believe in it - it would certainly make for a great film script.

It is just a pity that Gardiner didn’t publish his theory earlier; maybe James Cameron could have used it for the basis of his film and spared us all from the dreadful Jack and Rose romance?!

60% is a few too many…

Everybody anticipated that the Brexit referendum would deliver a close result and most, including me, felt that ‘remain’ would prevail (whatever their personal bias).

At no stage, did I consider the possibility of a 60:40 split or greater.

In previous Brexit posts, I alleged that Cameron was complacent and only wished to present the illusion of democracy…my conviction in this sentiment has strengthened.

He hoped that a narrow ‘remain’ majority would put the whole issue of EU membership to bed for another 41 years or so.

As such, he did not wish to publish in advance the constitutional requirements of the vote metrics.

I would, however, suggest that there has always been a plan in place to ensure continued EU membership, in the event of a surprise outcome to the referendum, and this was instigated within hours of the result.

Clearly, some sacrifices will have to be made along the way and Cameron is the first casualty…he could hardly call for a second referendum while claiming prior ignorance of the constitutional requirements of the first vote.

Similarly, George Osborn appears to be on a decidedly sticky wicket as the major perpetrator of the scary statistics and threats of an emergency budget if the electorate voted for Brexit. As such, he will need to be quietly replaced.

And what about Boris?

Isn’t it suspicious that he was pro-EU membership 15 months prior to the vote?

Was he ‘selected’ to run an unsuccessful ‘leave’ campaign?

It strikes me that the only real winner in the event of a second referendum is Nigel Farage who has an ideal platform to relaunch UKIP from. He is free to argue for a change in a constitution that cannot possibly be considered democratic.

The way it is currently drawn up, the UK will, by default, remain in the EU in perpetuity.

The UK’s grassy knoll…

If you have got this far, you are probably wondering why I mentioned JFK at the beginning.

Well, the conspiratorial aspect of the JFK assassination is the US government’s continual campaign to make its citizens believe that there never was any conspiracy in the first place.

Doubtless, the UK government is similarly going to refute any suggestions of a Brexit conspiracy.

As is the case in the US, the people are free to choose whether they want to believe the ‘official’ line or not.

Who wants to have first bash at a film script?