Could Queen Elizabeth II become a pawn in the Brexit drama? In their latest bid to frustrate Britain’s independence from the European Union, Remainers are rumored to be considering enlisting Elizabeth II as an envoy to Brussels “to plead” for delay.

So reports Breitbart London in respect of the most recent plot to stymie Britain’s exit from the grip of Brussels mandarins. Three years since a clear majority voted to leave, efforts to betray the will of the people and remain subservient to the EU grow more desperate as the “latest” exit date of October 31 nears.

That new leadership is due in Downing Street only heightens the likelihood that Britain will be out, come Hallowe’en. That the incoming premier will ask the Queen to end — or prorogue — the current Parliament and thus ensure Brexit doubtless contributes to this competition for royal favor.

Is the irony lost on no one? Britons’ principal reason to leave is based on the EU’s growing appetite for power, morphing into a “super-state,” evolving its own prerogatives, betraying the original plan to pool together sovereign European states for limited projects of mutual benefit.

Of those powers Brexiteers want to claw back, top of the list is Britain’s ability to craft its own regulatory parameters, negotiate trade deals, oversee border security, and legislate free from Brussels oversight. To wit, to restore sovereignty to Westminster and, not so incidentally, the Queen.

After all, she is the United Kingdom’s “Head of State.” All laws are enacted in her name. Her ministers swear fealty to her. Her “subjects” send representatives to Parliament to help her govern the nation.

Even Boris Johnson would — if he does, as seems likely, emerge as the next Conservative prime minister once leadership ballots are counted early this week — visit Buckingham Palace to receive his appointment as Elizabeth’s “first minister” and “kiss hands” with his sovereign.

Brexit would be no less a victory for Britain’s constitutional monarchy than for the British people. The Queen was never more a mere “figurehead” than when ultimate responsibility of key national issues was decided far from Albion.

Another way to articulate the point is that what Britons voted for in the June 2016 referendum was precisely to announce their preference to be subjects of the Queen rather than of Brussels. Come Brexit, the Crown would once again become the ultimate authority of “who reigns in Britain.”

Britain’s sovereignty will no longer be “outsourced” to EU bureaucrats as final arbiters of what passes muster in England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. The “Queen-in-Parliament” will be able to proclaim, with apologies to Harry Truman, “the sterling stops here.”

Remainers have no shame whatsoever. They are still bemoaning they don’t pay for fish-and-chips with euros. Not even the most faithless of fish wants to be paid for in euros. The Remainers’ willingness to even consider sending the 93-year-old monarch to ask for a further extension merely underlines their depravity.

More tellingly, it further discloses just how little these solons care for Britain’s constitutional fabric of customs, traditions, and common law. They aim to pit the Queen and her “Remainer” Parliament against her Government: a (putative) Prime Minister and Cabinet who will pledge to take Britain out of the EU, “do or die.”

The Queen, by convention, is to take the advice of her prime minister. It is the bedrock upon which Britain’s constitutional monarchy rests. For Remainers hell-bent on destroying the promise of British independence, convention and the crown count for nought.

So might the Queen go to Brussels, diadem-in-hand, to request an extension? The scenario is far-fetched. Steve Baker MP calls it “daft.” The Alliance of British Entrepreneurs deems the suggestion “absolutely disgusting” — and more damning an insight into Remainer machinations than any royal political intervention.

Were the Queen ever actually asked to take on the awkward assignment of lobbyist of the EU, she would have plenty of reasons to refuse the commission. Relying on her prime minister’s advice to leave on October 31 would be sufficient justification in itself.

Her Majesty is no slouch, though, at being in touch with the mood of her people. She would not have sailed through a 67-year reign otherwise. She can be no stranger to Britons’ desire to regain their independence. Nor to their outrage of being frustrated, time and again, by their “representatives” in Parliament.

Not that the Queen herself has been entirely circumspect on Brexit. During the Coalition Government, in the run-up to the decisive 2016 referendum vote to exit, Britain’s future EU independence came up at a private luncheon. To one of her ministers, she put the question bluntly, “I don’t see why we can’t just get out.” Then Elizabeth II asked the question that has vexed millions of her freedom-loving subjects for years: “What’s the problem?”