BOTH the Cock-Up and the Coincidence theories, rather than the Conspiracy theory, of history – especially where the history, even the very recent one, of politics is concerned – are usually more persuasive. But you’d surely have to be very phlegmatic about it indeed not to wonder if the astonishing convenience, for the Remainer Establishment-Elite’s anti-Brexit cause, of this week’s events in and around Parliament can be put down entirely to coincidence.

First, the largely synthetic outrage at last Monday’s ‘far-Right Brexiteer attack’ on Anna Soubry MP. Now, she’s on record, while being interviewed by Sky News’s Kay Burley on an earlier occasion, as calling even mildly protesting Brexiteers outside Parliament ‘racists and fascists’, but that of course was forgotten by the overwhelmingly anti-Brexit media in its orgy of confected indignation.

There were some very odd aspects about this ‘attack’. The perpetrators were in fact a minuscule bunch of obnoxious, name-calling cretins, reviled by Remainers and Leavers alike, more embarrassing than menacing, and from the videos I’ve watched there’s little, if any, evidence to support in any way Soubry’s implied allegations that she was physically assaulted, or even that she was impeded.

Yet if the demonstrators’ action was spontaneous, as they claimed, isn’t it a quite remarkable coincidence that EU shill and pro-Remain social-media darling Femi Oluwole and hard-Left street-agitator and occasional journalist Owen Jones just happened to be on hand to witness and report on the proceedings?

Just who was the man in the black jacket appearing to take quite a prominent role, but also captured on smartphone video filming speakers and hecklers at Speakers’ Corner just a day or so earlier? And then filmed slipping something into the pocket of Soubry’s minder, who was just in front of Soubry, as he appeared to accost him but then drew back in what (at 00:48) looked like a classic Le Carré brush pass?

None of these questions of course troubled the media, which, with the BBC as usual in the vanguard, seized the opportunity provided by the incident to run an anti-Brexit slant at the top of virtually every news and current affairs programme for the next 24 hours, escalating rapidly to imply that every single one of the 17.4million who voted to leave the EU was a dangerous and potentially violent street-thug, prevented from visiting physical harm upon our impeccably democratic legislators only by distance, the public-spirited consciences of aforementioned Oluwole and Jones, and the fearless vigilance of the ‘impartial’ media.

Anti-Brexit MPs (and that’s most of them, remember) soon joined in. Dozens demanded better police protection  – protection, that is, from people for whom, now that their democratic vote is being ignored, hurling a few intemperate epithets at manifesto-overturning politicians is about the last option they still have left.

Where, though, were those dozens of MPs demanding that the police provide better protection for them when Jacob Rees-Mogg and his young family were similarly insulted, threatened and intimidated by thuggish hard-Left protesters? The hypocrisy and double standards there were nauseating, but were about to get a lot worse.

Fast forward now to Wednesday’s Parliamentary shenanigans, which revolved around the Business of the House motion tabled by the Government covering the procedure for – not the substance of – the second stage of the Commons debate on Theresa May’s misnamed ‘Withdrawal’ Agreement. Business of the House motions are not amendable, although some MPs do try it on, and a significant body of Parliamentary precedent exists to support the convention.

Out of several attempted amendments to Wednesday’s motion, Speaker Bercow quite properly rejected three. He then chose, however, to accept one – that tabled by resolute anti-Brexiteer ‘Conservative’ Dominic Grieve, the effect of which was to require the Government, in the event of Theresa May’s ‘Withdrawal’ Agreement being defeated – as it almost certainly will be – when it comes to a vote in the House on Tuesday, to table an alternative Brexit plan within just three Commons sitting days. The intention of which was to eliminate any possibility of a No-Deal Brexit by the Government simply running down the clock until 29th March.

Bercow accepted the Grieve amendment against not only both Parliamentary precedent and the sound arguments put forward in numerous Points of Order, but also against the legal/constitutional advice of his own Parliamentary Clerks, whose expertise on this subject is acknowledged by all sides of the House.

It was as if Bercow, who has scarcely bothered to conceal his contempt for the Brexit vote even when sitting in the supposedly impartial Speaker’s Chair, had been waiting for his big chance to scupper any possibility of a WTO/No-Deal Brexit, and, courtesy of Grieve, seized it.

What a remarkable coincidence again. One of the normally rejected amendments to a Business of the House motion just happens to be put forward by arch-Remainer Grieve, and subsequently just happens to be allowed and not rejected by Remainer Bercow.

Just three weeks previously, Bercow had summoned the Government to the House to demand that it make its highly adverse legal advice on May’s BRINO Deal public. On Wednesday he refused to make public his own Clerks’ legal advice on procedure, and moreover physically made off with it. Despite stiff competition in the current Parliament, it’s hard to imagine any greater, more blatant hypocrisy than Bercow’s.

The Grieve amendment was passed with the help of 17 of the usual ‘Conservative’ Party suspects who persistently parade with pride their Continuity-Remain credentials and who find no problem in voting against the manifesto on which they were content to stand for Parliament and get elected.

And who, in addition, eagerly participated in arguably the most nauseating spectacle of a nauseating week – the blatantly anti-democratic diehard Remainers on both sides of the Commons aisle gloating at how, courtesy of Bercow and Grieve, they have taken back control of Brexit for Parliament from the Executive, and boasting disingenuously that, after all, they’re only doing what Leave voters claim to want.

Which is arguably the foulest lie of the lot. We voted for Brexit in order to leave the EU and thereafter have our affairs decided by Parliament as a consequence of having left: not to give control to Parliament to let it override the Referendum decision and not leave at all.

What would be the statistical probability of a minor, almost artificial-looking, outside-Parliament scuffle and name-calling just happening to be witnessed by two anti-Brexiteers with media access, allowing a 24-hour anti-Brexit media narrative just happening to be run for the specific 24 hours preceding an unconstitutional anti-Brexit Parliamentary amendment by an anti-Brexit MP just happening to be improperly accepted by an anti-Brexit Speaker, leading to an anti-Brexit measure being voted by an anti-Brexit Parliament?

You just can’t help wondering if it’s all been scripted, can you?

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.