Topsy-Turvy: Flipping the EU Debate on its Head Gives Clarity.

I've said before that all this turmoil over the Brexit referendum is better if we just for a second imagined that the result was 52/48 in favour of remain.

Would we still be talking about the result three years later? Would Parliament actively be working against the Government to secure an exit from the EU on behalf of the referendum losers?

No, absolutely not. The losing voters would have been told that the matter is settled, we were staying in the EU and a mere few months after the referendum, government process would have turned away from the question and life would have continued as before. The Status Quo would very much be in place.

Any losers would have been told vehemently to "suck it up" and just carry on as if nothing had happened.

Of course because the result was the opposite, we have had the opposite reaction: a Parliament that has time and time again conspired against the Government, and who is now taking about not settling the matter with an election, but going to the lengths of deposing the incumbent government and anointing the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister in order to defer the exit from the EU.

For three years we have had obfuscation, delay, chicanery and bending of laws and precedents in order to oppose leaving.

For what purpose? What sunlit uplands do those that conspire to keep us in the EU see in the UK's future as part of the EU? We know that remainers say there will be catastrophyThere is very little said about what a future for the EU looks like with the UK as part of it. All we hear is how bad exiting the EU will be, we never hear of the real tangible benefits of staying in the EU.

For instance, there is no mention of the stronger European Defence Force envisioned for the future of the EU, no mention of the harmonised income tax regimes planned for the future, no mention of harmonised national budgets. No one on the remain side is putting forward the positive effects of these at all. just that the status quo is better than the unknown quantity of change. I wonder why, is it possibly that those things are precisely what made UK voters vote to leave the EU? Are they net benefits after all or not? From the actions of the remainers and their reluctance to offer tangible benefits, I suspect not. All was talked about briefly during the referendum, but due to Brexit have been put on the back burner by the EU whilst we thrash out a possible deal.

And in that last sentence is the clue certainly to what a future EU would look like without the UK is a member. So frit are they of rocking the boat, the most ambitious plans of the EU have been put on hold for three years, with only moderate advances in those areas. Where before the referendum there were great and ambitious plans coming from Brussels.

Without the UK, the EU would collapse. So desperate are they to have us as a member, they are willing to forestall all major plans so that those in the UK that plan to keep us in the EU don't have anything adverse happen that could give ammunition to the leavers. Nothing that could allow a leaver to say "Aha! Told you so!".

THAT is the great tell, the thing that you look for in a Poker game when sizing up the hand of your opposition.

In another Poker analogy, the EU has a weak hand and they are bluffing.

The EU are busily working under the table to garner support. There are already reports of MPs working with EU representatives to table legislation in the UK Parliament. We already have reports of UK civil servants working with their EU counterparts as well.

Sadly Boris Johnson's government is too weak to propose legislation to outlaw this. But at least the civil servants conspiring against government policy and working with the EU should be removed from office. MPs will face their voters and be made to defend their actions.

But as the title states, by turning things on their head, you can see more clearly why the actors in the Brexit saga are playing the roles they do.

I suspect the EU has more to lose if we leave without any agreement. I suspect those that clamour for us to remain and the organised protests to do the same are a good indication that the EU and their supporters are desperate for us to stay not for our sake, but for the EU's.

As the clock ticks closer to the 31st of October, the lengths that the EU supporters in Media, Parliament and now the judiciary are stooping to is a great indicator if you can step back and see the big picture.

I suspect that things will escalate further as the month progresses without a capitulation to the EU.

I just wonder if so petitioned by the public, the Queen could announce the dissolution of Parliament instead of giving a speech announcing governmental policy. After all the government can request a dissolution and they are classed as the voice of the public in Parliament. Could the public have the power to petition the monarch directly I wonder?  It would be wonderful to see the massed ranks of members of Parliament be dismissed and told to put their case to the voters.