MAY’S CHEQUERSPLAN’: an idiot’s guide to Sovereign betrayal

methink2The Devil is not in the detail of the White Paper designed to give us the complete heads-up on The Chequers Capitulation. The stench of Beelzebub is unmistakable in the limited hot air already emitted by Number Ten’s press release outline. There is something missing in the British body politic. It’s called a soul. 


Some Brits have been gaining solace over the last 24 hours from the news that Michel Barnier thinks Mrs Pillowcase’s Chequers proposal “is 80% of the way there”, while Angela Merkel (she of the collapsing German Coalition) has given “tentative encouragement” to Cap’n Mayflower’s plan….which she had sight of before the British Cabinet did.

So I thought it was time The Slog’s followers – and anyone still unsure about leaving the European Union – should understand what the general drift of Project Pillowcase is. We have been promised a White Paper on “the detail” of it on a Neverendum basis: now it seems we shall have it tomorrow, or then again maybe next week. My view is that one does not have to see the details of a rout: an assessment of the direction of travel and sight of the piled-up dead bodies are all anyone requires to declare The Charge of the Light Brigade a rout.

Martin Howe –  an eminent QC – has produced a briefing document for his profession, which you can read in full here. He agrees with me by noting that, ‘The government’s proposals can only be fully assessed once their promised White Paper is
published. However, some important conclusions can be drawn very
clearly even on the basis of this limited information’. These are the key points he makes:

Common rulebook:  ‘the UK would have to obey and apply in complete detail the laws promulgated by the EU without having a vote on the content of those laws’. In short, much worse than our current situation.

Ability to change current laws. ‘There is no indication in the text of the statement that the UK would have any ability to change any of the existing body of EU laws, however damaging they may be or become in the future….. In order supposedly to benefit
the 12% of our economy which consists of exports to the EU, we would accept a binding obligation to freeze the laws which cover 100% of our economy consisting of domestic production and also imports from third countries’. In short, slightly worse than our current situation.

Obligation to follow future changes to EU laws. ‘The statement tells us that the UK would “commit by treaty to ongoing harmonisation” in the area covered by the EU rulebook’. This means the continuing use of statutory instruments to incorporate EU law into British Law. In 46 years of membership, not one SI has ever been voted down. In short, the same as we endure now.

Ignoring that obligation. ‘Parliament would have “the ability to choose not to” incorporate future changes into UK law “recognising that this would have consequences”’. This is also in Norway’s trade deal with Brussels. They exercised their “rights” just once, and the Sprouts turned so nasty, the Norwegians backed down. In short, more explicitly at the mercy of bullies than we are now.

Mr Howe continues at length but with clinical precision to point out a staggering twenty six further clauses in the Chequers proposal, none of which involve Britain in any increase in Sovereign independence whatsoever. He goes on further to list nine conclusions, one of which in particular leaps off the page:

‘These proposals therefore lead directly to a worst-of-all-worlds
“Black Hole” Brexit where the UK is stuck permanently as a vassal
state in the EU’s legal and regulatory tar-pit, still has to obey EU
laws and ECJ rulings across vast areas, cannot develop an effective
international trade policy or adapt our economy to take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit, and has lost its vote and treaty veto
rights as an EU Member State.’


Now these are the questions I address to those who genuinely cannot make their mind up what to do, think or feel in relation to having Theresa May’s stewardship of the Brexit negotiations:

  1. Merkel and Barnier think this a jolly good step in the right direction. What more would they want….every fourth child sold into slavery? An army of occupation to oversee our levels of obedience?
  2. The Remainers in general – along with the likes of Alastair Campbell, Baron Adonis, Keir Starmer and lifelong EU-hater Jeremy Corbyn – are going to oppose the proposal on the grounds that the UK is cherry picking. Corbyn being a jam-maker sans pareil, I cannot for the life of me fathom what he sees as the difference between abject surrender and picking cherries. Do you really want the governance of the UK to be in the hands of these New World Order idealist lunatics?
  3. How can you any longer believe a single word emitted from the facial orifice of Prime Minister Pillowcase? She said ‘Brexit means Brexit’: what she is proposing amounts to “Brexit means Slavery”. The ancient Israelites under the thumb of Egypt had a better deal than this one.
  4. Do you believe the PM is working for Britain? Really?
  5. On the basis if this analysis, are you surprised that it took Boris Johnson 36 hours to resign?
  6. My definition of Brexit is neither hard nor soft, it is this: Sovereign Brexit. How would you rate the chances of that being achieved, given the seven top offices of State are now held by Remainers?
  7. Are you surprised that Dominic Raab – a self-professed Leaver – accepted the job as Brexit secretary given the onerous ball and chain his boss is presenting to us?
  8. In both the major Parties at Westminster, which of these do you think applies: they are putting country before Party, or Party before country?

Pieces of Eight to mull over.


It isn’t just the utter disloyalty to British democracy that sticks in my throat when thinking about the actions of Westminster and Whitehall in relation to this Master Class of muddled self-interest and power-mania.

It’s the assumption underlying it that the British electorate is thicker than a wooden beam designed to prop up the leaning Tower of Pisa.

It is obviously the belief of the Whiteminster Class that they can sell gefillte fish to ISIS. As I have posted on many occasions, Theresa Pillowcase is a dyed in the wool member of that class.

I do not, however, accept the definition of her as a traitor, because a traitor is a hidden enemy of the State. But the Prime Minister is an employee of the disgusting lowlife that now is the State.

She is in, in truth, nothing more or less than an overt Enemy of the People.