Theresa may's Chequers Brexit deal is causing consternation amongst Conservative Party bigwigs.

Now there's a surprise, Conservative Association chairs are far from happy about the PM's Chequers based Brexit deal.

The Guardian reports that:

"Theresa May’s Chequers plan is in further jeopardy after it emerged that seven Conservative association chairs in constituencies represented by a cabinet member have expressed scepticism about the proposals."

It seems that they are either opposed to the deal or, at best, will only support it if it is not watered down anymore by the EU, to which I say – Fat Chance!

Even the chair of the PM's own constituency association, Richard Kellaway, is reported to have taken that stance of half-hearted support.

Ah But, the man himself, Richard Kellaway, says that this report that surfaced in the Telegraph is fake news.

He told Nigel Farage on LBC this morning that what he said was the precise opposite of what was being claimed.

"What I told them was that we fully support the Prime Minister – of course we would."

"I hate to tell you this, Nigel, but this is fake news." He told Mr Farage.

Well, they might like to support their boss, but they might also find that the perception that they therefore essentially support the Olly Robbins Brexit plan down at constituency level, will lose them a further tranche of members and supporters. The Tories are in real trouble whatever they do – I really hope those UKIP membership phone lines are open!

Now for more scare-mongering.

We now learn from The Times that the armed forces are preparing to help the government in their duty to aid the civil power if needed over Brexit – although the Ministry of Defence doesn't yet seem aware of any official request.

And the Guardian wheels out Jay Rayner for some anti-Brexit fear-mongering with visions of no food on our plates post-Brexit.

He also says that for the US to totally replace all imports into the UK would take a huge logistical effort that would make the second world war Atlantic convoys pale into insignificance.

But no-one has yet explained exactly how the import of food would really be affected.

Question one, would officials on the EU side stop the stuff coming over, if so why? And if they did they'd get short shrift from their own producers and manufacturers who need to make money.

Question two, would officials on this side stop the produce entering the UK, if so on what basis? And if they did our consumers would give them a bit of a hard time.

Question three, why would the UK put any tariffs on any goods coming over from the EU that we need and can't supply ourselves or get cheaper from elsewhere? If so why?

We are buyers and eaters of food, they are producers and sellers of food – so trade will be done.

And further, let's be clear about this, prices are more likely to go up due to our reducing milk yields and potato crops after the recent hot weather, which to Remoaners' disappointment has little to do with Brexit and perhaps more to do with globalisation! If climate change is down to man then maybe one of the factors is that we maybe transport too much too far.

And on climate change, Amber Rudd, the former Home Secretary, has compared anyone who won't agree that a no-deal Brexit will entirely crash the country, with climate change deniers.

"Such an endeavour will not be straightforward. Anyone who claims it will is being as cavalier with people’s future as those who deny that the belching of fossil fuels into the atmosphere is warming the planet." She said.

The next ratchet up of course is to compare Brexit crash Deniers with Holocaust deniers – you heard it here first!

And all this Remain-backed shenanigans is leading towards calls for us to have either, an extension of the Article 50 process, or a second referendum. Both with the aim of reversing the biggest democratic decision ever taken in this country.

And the Express reports that a researcher at the London School of Economics, Michael Cottakis, has urged the PM to hold another referendum saying that due to an out of control government and the inability to reach a political consensus "The possibility of no Brexit, via a second referendum, must be put back on the table."

Can you imagine if the turnout of a second referendum was lower than the first due to people just saying 'what's the point in voting if no-one's listening'. That would be a massive constitutional risk to take.

In fact, anyone advocating a second EU referendum shows that they are the ones actually in denial, they are Brexit backlash deniers!

They believe that all they have to do is play games with the electorate and the voters will all behave and everything will go back to what was a cosy little world for them.

There is a growing anger across the country at the establishment's unwillingness to comply with the wishes of the people and, if our politicians cannot detect that then they should move aside.

The best way towards splitting the people from those that govern them and cause a meteoric rise in the popularity of UKIP, is to ignore the 2016 referendum result.

Comment Here!