Vichy; Chequers 2018.

Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and Mrs May can meet all they like at Chequers. The EU will refuse any British terms except the withdrawal of our notice to quit and the payment of a heavy ‘fine’. Their only fear might be that this may precipitate a hard Brexit, but they know Mrs May and the Treasury – The Beating Heart of Remain – are too spineless to contemplate this, and besides the British establishment’s  loathing of the unwashed rabble who dared vote leave is boundless.

If necessary they would call out the army if there was trouble.

The same goes of course for half the British population which hates the other half.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

44 Comments on Vichy; Chequers 2018.

  1. This response is in reply to George Dickinson 7/9/19 @ 10.05pm (there is no reply button under his post):
    What “super battleships” are you referring to George? Bismarck and Tirpitz were their only battleships, each of them comparable to the 5 “Queen Elizabeth” class battleships of the RN. All WW1 types but completely refitted in the 1930s. 8 x 15″ guns each, although the German ships were faster and were equipped with superior optics. In a ship to ship duel Warspite would have handled either of them, although they could have run for it.
    You fall into the classic English trap; you actually think that you are relevant! Germany could not care less about England, a pathetic power of no European relevance whatsoever. As Bismarck said; when asked how he would react if the British Army invaded Germany; “I would send the local constable to arrest it”.
    England is completely irrelevant, and has been for at least 100 years.
    England is a joke.
    The biggest cause of weakness of the RN in WW2 was the result of that idiot Churchill, who, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer,
    eviscerated the RN budget.
    Germany had only a few submarines operational in 1940, they did not take seriously any conflict with England, England had no power to cause harm to Germany, except when the RAF, completely ignoring it’s duty to the Army, concentrated on the indiscriminate murder of German women and children, a war crime comparable to anything that occurred in Auschwitz.
    The biggest story of WW2 is the utterly irresponsible warmongering of the criminal Churchill, a narcissistic snob who didn’t give a damn about the country he was supposed to be representing.
    This begs a question; just who was he representing? Indisputably he was representing the Anglo-American/Jewish international banking cabal. The ones who had handsomely paid him off, whether as a result of his support, or to buy it in the first place, makes no difference.

    • Rogerinflorida – look up German battleship programme on Google. You will find that it supports what I understand rather than your view. One short interesting item –

      “Plan Z was the name given to the planned re-equipment and expansion of the Kriegsmarine (German navy) ordered by Adolf Hitler in early 1939. The fleet was meant to challenge the naval power of the United Kingdom, and was to be completed by 1948.” It didn’t quite happen, but note that this was Hitler’s plan BEFORE Churchill took him on in 1940.

      And do please stop whacking at Winston Churchill; remember that an awful lot of more serious things could be said about several USA politicians, including a few Presidents. And you have not said that you support the present office-holder, as I obliquely requested. Please answer that question, but I do not propose to continue the debate. We are apparently working from different presuppositions.

      • I absolutely support President Trump and donated $450.00 to his campaign.
        The German battleship program was designed to allow an attack against the United States.
        The RN was irrelevant.

  2. I see there are a number of correspondents from overseas who no longer take the magazine because the airmail edition is too expensive. The electronic version is 100% the same as the paper version, and has the advantage of being indexed, press on a title and you get the article. It is also ridiculously cheap, and to our advantage, you can pass it on to your friends for nothing, thus spreading the the WORD in such places as our lost territories in the Americas following the disasters of Saratoga and Yorktown.

  3. Barnier has said that the only solution to the Irish border is Norway plus a customs union. Yet Mrs May offers another bowl of cherries that have been picked over before. No wonder the EU will reject it. This moves the whole thing towards a hard Brexit.

    Mrs May is falling between two stools as a result of having to appease both parts of her cabinet and the factions in the Tory Party. At this point the EU will let time run out, apart from any extension they consider is sufficient to shore up their own interests on the continent. Then the hard Brexiteers will get their Brexit. I hope they are hard enough.

  4. How depressing that the comment section of the Salisbury Review website, which is typically distinguished by the intelligence, culture and discrimination of its contributors, whose contributions add so much to the original articles (and who one sometimes wishes contributed original articles themselves, so interesting and cogent are their arguments) should descend to the inanities and angry personal abuse that characterise so many other current affairs websites.
    The editorial of this week’s 190th anniversary edition of The Spectator is relevant here: ‘The Spectator was launched, from its first issue, ‘to convey intelligence’ and to foster good-humoured debate.’ As Joseph Addison remarked all those years ago, ‘a conversation without wit was no conversation at all’.

  5. My two cents worth:
    PM May is attempting to make the best of a situation that is, in fact, a complete wreck.
    A careful and dispassionate analysis of England’s plight now makes for the most depressing conclusions. I say England’s deliberately as the United Kingdom is actually the last remaining remnant of the Whitehall (AKA “British”) Empire. There is talk now in Eire of unification by Christmas. You all know that Scotland is gone as soon as the subsidies run out.
    The corporate evacuation is well underway, and accelerating, despite the soothing statements of “commitment to Britain”, yeah right, we are all one big happy family, right?
    Leavers make the absurd claim that Britain was OK before the EU and will be OK after. Those of us who lived through it know better. The John Bull truculence is not helping (are you listening Hannan, Farage, etc., you idiots).
    The facts are gruesome: England is the most densely populated country in Europe. It has no significant natural resources, it, therefore, must rely on intellectual capital. The problem with that is that, due to the mass immigration from 3rd world countries, the average IQ of England’s population has decreased by at least one standard deviation over the last 50 years. What this means is that there is no longer the human capital in England needed to achieve prosperity.
    This without mentioning the huge and growing debt, the lack of assets (all flogged off long ago), the technological backwardness or the huge numbers “employed” in utterly valueless occupations.
    It is reported that only 5% of property crimes in England are even investigated, never mind solved. Social breakdown has already occurred in many English communities, criminals run their rackets untroubled by authorities or conscience. A socially and ethnically homogenous population has been irrevocably destroyed, deliberately, by its own leaders.
    Imagine the effect of a 75% devaluation of the Pound?
    Yes, the City of London will remain the world’s center of money laundering and financial manipulation, that will keep the 0.1% rich, but won’t do much for the rest of you.
    You probably don’t want to acknowledge it, but PM May is facing the worst crisis to confront England since 1940, and maybe even worse than that. She is trying to salvage some semblance of a sensible solution from a situation that, frankly, defies any sensible reasoning.

    • “She is trying to salvage some semblance of a sensible solution from a situation that, frankly, defies any sensible reasoning.”

      Alliteration is your only claim to fame, Mr Seven Slowly Sinking Ships.

      • That is it, is it? That is all you have to say! No response to the facts, just typical apathetic resentment.
        So you appreciate a little alliteration do you:
        England; land of lovely landscapes, of liberty, law, and literacy, now littered with libertine louts.
        A previously prosperous and proud people poised on the precipice of pestilence, pusillanimous poverty and penury.
        We wonder, is johnhenry a witty wordsmith or just another worthless wanker.
        Thank God my grandchildren are Americans!

      • “Thank you rogerinflorida, that is very generous…”

        Brother Harris (can I call you ‘Myles’, now that we’re acquainted?) are you complimenting Roger on his donation to TSR or on his calling me a “worthless wanker”?

        • Oh come on johnhenry, the relationship of a man with his fist is the new “Love that cannot speak its name”.

        • As for the lucre – filthy or not – that Roger has sent TSR with a flick of his index finger, I’m reminded of a wise woman (go figure) blogger who wrote this to her admirers a few days ago:
          “Larger denomination donations make me worry. I’m trying to build a broader base of low-denomination donor/subscribers…which is a sounder paradigm in multiple ways, including smoothing out cash flow, and a defense against the temptations of pride and arrogance, or worrying about appeasing or not offending big donors…The laborer is worthy of his hire – NOT of exorbitance…”

          Of course, small (eminently worthy) journals of opinion such as TSR see larger donations as a victory, not a curse, which is understandable.

    • I may be being petty, but I think line 2 should have “except” rather than “accept”. If England is sinking, maybe without remedy, at least let try to use our international language correctly as we struggle to find a lifeboat. rogerinflorida’s two cents worth assessment on 7 July is pretty close to the mark; just one disagreement – in 1940 Winston Churchill, as the nation’s spokesman, pulled us through by an aggressive resistance to all enemies and opposition, along with a certain amount of bluff to give us time and space to recover (after Dunkirk). Those seem to be the very attributes, qualities, missing from our present “leader(s)”.

      • Sorry, my line 2 on 8 July! Change “let” to “let’s”. At least it wasn’t an “h” that I dropped!

        • “At least it wasn’t an “h” that I dropped!”

          Actually, Dicky, the word is “‘aitch”, but look – there’s absolutely nothing wrong with:
          “Oi! Wha-a-law-a-ih-oh-yah-oh-baw-owes!”

          Indeed, the Queen Mother (RIP) often spoke that way after her G&T tipple of an afternoon.

          What I can’t abide is a ‘Lanky’ accent. Remember George Formby? Nice chap.

      • George; I believe that Winston Churchill’s determination to carry on the war was one of the most irresponsible actions of all human history. He rebuffed sincere peacemaking efforts from Germany in order to continue a campaign that could only be successful if the United States joined the conflict.
        What is not generally appreciated is how hostile the US body politic was to Britain and the British Empire. Germany had no interest in fighting the BE, they had plans for an empire of their own in European Russia.
        What consideration did WC give to his Epping constituents as he committed them to war and the country to certain ruin?
        Here we are again; English survival, if a hard BREXIT occurs, will be entirely dependent on American largesse.

        • Roger, you really do inhabit a mental world not entirely unadjacent to Disneyworld, don’t you? Forgive the triple negative, but you deserve it.

          • There you go again; more pointless hot air. Christ; are you the ever the champion of mental vacuity.
            If you are not going to address the issues for God’s sake give it a rest!

      • Thank you rogerinflorida. Yes, I understand completely that the USA was not in the business of upholding the British Empire, also that Winston Churchill was a convinced “imperialist” (eg the mistake of opposing Ghandhi when the latter wanted Britain out of India). On the other side of the coin, Hitler definitely had designs on conquering Britain, but not until say 1945 or’46, in line with his original battleship-building programme. By that time he would have already beaten Russia (he hoped), and would have had a totally invincible “wall” all the way from Denmark to Brest. Or is it to be considered that the Battle of Britain in the air and Operation Sea-Lion were purely a reply to Churchill’s belligerence earlier in 1940? History would indicate otherwise. A further thought – what would a pax with Germany in 1940 have been like? Surely rather worse than the EU’s current domination that the Brexit “Leave” voters were opposed to. Hitler demanded submission, not peaceful co-existence, as he demonstrated with his attack on treaty-bound Russia. Hmmm, Submission – is there not a modern equivalent, masquerading as religion? Which is another reason for that Brexit “leave” vote.

        • Hitler had designs on conquering everybody, you would be surprised, I think, if you knew the extent of typical military planning, everybody plans on fighting everybody else. This is largely because, absent a hot war, military forces have basically bugger all to do.
          Germany would have been too consumed with the task of consolidating their new empire to have been concerned with the rather pointless invasion of Britain.
          The Kriegsmarine was a force designed to dominate the Baltic, they had not even built up to the limits allowed them by the London Naval Treaty.
          The current EU can be accurately described as “The Fourth Reich” without the guns and tanks.
          As for islam, that alien is in your chest now, gestating nicely.

          • Roger writing from Disneyworld says:
            “Germany would have been too consumed with the task of consolidating their new empire to have been concerned with the rather pointless invasion of Britain.”

            Since when have the Channel Islands – specifically Jersey and Guernsey – not been part of Britain?

            I happen to know that the Wehrmacht invaded and occupied them for most of the war. I watched the Acorn Media film “Enemy At The Door”, don’t you know?

          • Rogerinflorida – please! Germany did not need super battleships for use in a Baltic that they already dominated. Remember also that the Royal Navy was pressurised to be weakened under the terms of “The Washington Naval Treaty” (of principal benefit to the USA). The German U-boat campaign in the Atlantic was, but of course, solely a result of Churchill’s utterances against “that Hitler” in 1940. And you really think that Churchill should have made a pax with the devilish “Narzees”(as he, deliberately insultingly, called them)? Surely you’ve got to be joking! No, Hitler wanted to kid Britain on until he had subdued everybody else, after which he could could give us his full and sole attention. But it didn’t quite work out that way. Our subsequent and current problems have arisen from seventy plus years of “hidden agenda” left wing / Marxist infiltration and subversion. You might also take a look at the USA in that respect and, incidentally, I trust you are giving your legally elected current President your full support.

    • Little Boy Blue – Cameron – started the crisis by betting the farm on winning the referendum. Mrs May has continued it by her continuing to offer the EU her cherry picking.

      I agree that a serious crisis is in the making; a political shift as great as that which occurred after the Great War. In any trade deals the USA and India will make mincemeat out of Britain.

      • Jolly: You can bet that in any trade deal Britain makes with India, the Indians will insist on the unrestricted right of their people to emigrate to Britain. Same goes for Pakistan and Bangladesh.
        What great advantage accrues to Britain through a trade deal with the US?
        Trade is almost free between the two countries now, incidentally, US business calls Britain “Treasure Island” because of the huge profits they make, largely because Britain is now largely incapable of doing anything or making anything for themselves.

  6. My worry is whether this country has the balls to carry off a hard Brexit. Half the population – urged on by the Remainers – will be crying, “I told you so,” and working to frustrate the very difficult time ahead. It is going to be Blood, Sweat, and Tears as we grapple with the challenges we will face, but unlike the last war we will have our very own Vichyites – defeatist, pusillanimous, and risk-averse. Britain is no longer the Nation State it was.

  7. Just what is the point of this stub? To spread alarm and despair? If so, shut up. The point is to fight the left, not to tell us how powerful they are; not to demoralise or discourage us. This is the endless failing of the right – to let its philosophical pessimism degenerate into simple pessimism; to indulge in whining nostalgia. You mention Vichy; Marshal Petain was the very type of the decayed conservative; don’t emulate his defeatism.

    • We are talking realism here, not nostalgia. The Conservative party and its followers are entirely responsible for the disaster of Brexit. Unlike the left who attend meetings get up petitions, elbow their way into broadcasting suites, or just take the time to write a few lines to their MP, conservatives are too fond of sitting around decrying the present state of affairs, but as soon as they are challenged by a leftie they drift into comfortable incoherence.But actually do anything? ‘My dear chap, we are conservatives, we don’t have to do anything, we don’t even have to think. Just repeat the Daily Telegraph headlines every morning over your porridge and that is your thinking done for the day.’

      • There is more than a grain of truth in this cry of despair. The Conservative Party has been running scared for years, letting the Left capture the high ground again and again. The Brexit vote – a great dash for freedom – bucked that trend but after two years of bowing and scraping we’re almost back to where we started.

      • This is because most conservatives are old! The elderly have neither the energy nor the strength to ram their opinions down everyone else’s throat. The few Brexiteers I know are in their sixties; until they were sure that I also voted leave, they were understandably nervous and apologetic – who knows what sort of abuse would be heaped upon them were they to make their views known in the wrong company? And the old are weaker, frailer, more easily moved, more doubtful and more merciful than the young; their wounds take longer to heal. How dare you sit there blaming them for not behaving like the left? It’s crass and stupid; and it in no way answers my point – that you’re just spreading alarm and despair. The really important and interesting thing to do now would be to come up with some suggested actions; can you actually do that? And please don’t tell us to vote Corbyn or let the Tories be defeated: Lenin’s “the worse the better” is, and always has been, evil advice. The worse, the worse. Another question: do you preach your views on street corners? Do you try to convert the undecided? Or do you simply fan angry misery among the true believers from the safety of your computer? It’s frighteningly easy to churn out complaints and it has become a substitute for actually doing anything. Finally, let me propose some actions: we vote for any MP who is neither a hard left nut nor a europhil stooge. In those constituencies without such a candidate, let’s field some. UKIP is a start but it won’t wash in the north, so we create another “party of Brexit”. That way we keep the established Brexiteers and dislodge the Brussels puppets. As an editor with contacts, you’re in a better position to start something of this kind than the rest of us. It may very well come to nothing, but its better than whining, turning fire on the one party which might actually one day help us and making everyone else as miserable as you.

        • I don’t think it is necessarily true that the older population carried the vote, but it may be the fact. If that is so then I would ask them “did you not consult your young relatives”, they are the ones after all who will have to live with this BREXIT idiocy.
          I asked this of my own sister, who voted to leave; did you not ask your children what they thought? She has four boys, all grown up now, all of whom voted to remain.
          The truth is that the old BREXITEERS are embittered, brought up on a diet of English superiority, they cannot accept that England just cannot compete.
          England is a functionally incompetent society at every level.

        • To produce a magazine like the Salisbury Review takes an enormous amount of money, time and effort, we are all volunteers, in the present climate we try very hard to present the views of the rational traditional right, whatever the consequences. We cannot be accused of not preaching on street corners. Our articles are deliberately provocative and we go out if our way to publish articles that step on the toes of left wing piety,I am old but I have two jobs,one as the editor and another in a very demanding profession. So on all these counts Mr Openshaw’s accusations fail. Are you a subscriber to our magazine Mr Openshaw, do you belong to a political party, when was the last time you wrote to your MP? What was the last significant political actiion you took.? A few weeks ago I was at a three hour demonstration in Whitehall on behalf of freedom of speech, were you there?

          • Mr. Harris:
            $18.00 a year for the magazine (.pdf) is quite ridiculous, it is worth four times as much at least.
            I am going to send a cash contribution in the mail.
            Thank you and your staff for your efforts.

          • I want to tell you Mr. Harris; your magazine has no competitors anywhere in the English speaking world.
            The quality of content, of writers, of analysis, of commentary, is quite wonderful. I have my .pdf copy printed out and put it into a binder with the previous copies I have. I read them, and I think about them, and I consider your articles seriously, they change my mind, they inform me.
            Anybody who is a regular reader of this site knows that you and I have frequently crossed (verbal) swords, but what you and your staff are doing is priceless!

          • I didn’t read Percy’s comment. Should I have? Anyroad, I’m happy thinking our esteemed Editor and I might practise the same “very demanding profession”. Not the oldest profession, mind you, nor the most boring (accountancy) most sanctimonious (ministry) or the most physically taxing (dentistry). My name has appeared in our Reports, but probably not as often as our Editor’s has in his. Must look him up sometime.

            And if ever on this side of the Atlantic, I would welcome his company at lunch. My treat. Of course, this would be after he visits Roger at Disneyworld in Orlando.

          • My MP is fed up of my letters, thank you. I am a member of a political party, although I believe in founding another, with the aim of dislodging the “ancient regime” currently thwarting Brexit. As to my preaching point – it does not fail; in producing this magazine – whatever the cost in labour – you merely tickle the fancy of a small, aging, insignificant fraction of the population. You do not get through to the wider public – you are safely ignored. You do know how few news agents stock your paper, don’t you? And no, I don’t subscribe; the goods are too variable in quality. But the worst of it all is still that you encourage a passive, shoulder shrugging attitude among your readers which can only tend to persuading them not to vote at all. Is this helpful? Is it wise to undermine the current least worst option in politics, without then offering a positive alternative? No, you have not refuted my points. You produce this magazine – fine, but mere sweat does not amount to value, as any anti-Marxist should know, so no more whinging, please. It’s still a small, marginal, closed loop – which offers entertainment and diversion, fatally laced with angry resignation – what the left calls, with some justice alas, merely reactionary.

      • Mr Harris,

        If I may offer a word of advice. Stop defending your articles against the naysayers. Reasonable engagement is one thing, but it sometimes pays to maintain an authoritative aloofness. There is a reason why you are a publish commentator and they are not, after all.

        BTL comments are a debate. You, as the author/ proposer/ arbiter of the debate should stand aside from it (and enjoy the responses).

        • But HE is the naysayer; he proposes nothing positive; nothing concrete. He lobs brickbats and says it’s all worthless anyway. What’s the point of that?

        • Fin, I agree with you, by and large. Blog owners should be guarded about joining “Below the Fold” discussions; but not as an absolute rule.

          TSR, despite its provenance as Sir Roger’s organ (I subscribed to the print edition back in the naughties, but exorbitant overseas mailing costs and other financial considerations have ended that) is not exactly a scholarly journal (Hi, Rev. Mullen! Hi, Jane Kelly!). At least some interaction betwixt owners and commenters on non-scholarly websites is important if reader interest is not to lapse. Rogerindisneyworld, God bless him, would not be here unless he was often mentioned in dispatches.