The Home Secretary Theresa May has today sought to reassure middle-aged Daily Mail readers that Brexit is not 100 per cent necessary to achieve her planned ‘complete enslavement’ of the working age population.
Mrs May’s proposal represents a significant escalation in the arms-race between the hard-right MPs on either side of the Brexit divide. In recent weeks a number of anti-EU figures have argued that only by leaving the EU would it be possible to scrap the ‘failing’ NHS, or to replace all human rights with a ‘bill of obligations’.
The Home Secretary told reporters: “The prevailing opinion among those who currently enjoy comfortable retirements, or who are of working age and earn £100,000 or more, is that the government needs to crack down on the lifestyle choice to be of working age and earning less than £100,000 a year.”
“This feckless demographic caused the sub-prime crash in the USA and the global recession that followed, with overt collaboration from the terrorist-sympathising Labour Party. Therefore, it is only fair that people of working age who earn less than £100,000 a year should be made to pay for the terrorist damage they have done to the livelihoods of the very wealthy and retired, who were hit especially hard by slower than hoped rises in house prices.”
“And that is why if I become Conservative Party leader, I will make sure workers below the new retirement age of 100 who choose to earn less than £100,000 a year will have all human rights removed, and will be made to pay reparations to the retired and wealthy via a 60 % tax rate on all taxable income.”
In recent months the Home Secretary has gained a reputation for hard hitting and unorthodox political manoeuvres, such as her recent attendance at Parliament in the nude to reinforce her ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ point.
Mrs May added: “It is true that my husband has made very large capital gains thanks to decisions I made as Home Secretary that were entirely impartial, and the financial consequences my decisions were totally unforeseen by either of us. Despite the widespread rumours suggesting otherwise, I maintain I have done nothing wrong in giving highly lucrative contracts to a company in which my husband is a major shareholder.”