Johnson is a dill. The Conservative Party is not conservative. The UK, like Australia, is rooted.

This odious creature Johnson has come up with the idea for children to spy on their parents under the Covert Human Resource Bill which is to be reintroduced in The Commons any day now.

Hopefully it will be treated with the contempt and horror that it deserves; but, who would have thought that the party of Winston Churchill would one day be led by a lunatic!

Australia's is gradually becoming similar to Britain. Here, there's still a chance to reverse the Progressive mentality but time's running out !

It seems lefty thinking is creeping into OLO. Suppose an elephant is standing on your foot on a cloudy day. The weight gets lifted but it is still cloudy. The weight is the EU and the cloud is Covid 19. Be grateful for at least something.

Irelands both republic and northern are in the Atlantic and not part of Europe. They just want the subsidies. If Scotland goes European then there could be border checks and tariffs. I suggest trying it to see what the public thinks. I suspect history will be much kinder to Johnson than the last few UK PMs who achieved little.

Yes, I believe Johnson supported leave to further his insatiable political ambitions? If stay had been stronger? He would have been in the thick of it, rooting for stay!

We have been fortunate to be an island as covid-19 infected the world. Ditto New Zealand.

New Zealand with a Labor PM, is a shining example to the world. The UK, also an island, with a conservative PM, isn't!

The latter has his mouth well and truly engaged, well before he put his brain into gear?

How else would you explain outcomes over there?

That he has locked his brain in an ideological box? And has simply jettisoned reason?
Alan B.

The people there are not stupid.
As I recall, there was a referendum.
A majority of them made the decision to leave the EU.
Which decision was binding on the government?
The government simply acted to comply with the will of the people.
The fact that Boris Johnson was 'for' 'brexit' rather than 'against' it, no doubt added zeal to his actions.
But an ethical leader who was 'against' it would, quite properly, have done the same as Boris did.
When some say: 'oh, but', and 'if this or that had happened', or 'that was misleading', it appears to me they are serving little purpose.
Other than to make it seem that people don't have the ability to assess a situation and make a choice.
But the people can and did; and that is fact.
And a majority are almost always right.

So the truth is: the people made a decision, and the government acted on that decision.
Which is what they were meant to do.
Every path chosen for future improvement will likely have both positive and negative features.
This particular path was chosen by the people because they saw the positives as compelling, and far outweighing the negatives?
Should someone emphasise (possible) negatives afterwards, as if those negatives had already become alarming fact, that would be distinctly misleading?

When people vote on a matter, is seems to be that the 'fors' and 'againsts' are not evenly distributed in a community.
It appears that there will be 'areas' where the vote is largely one way.
Such an area is Scotland.
But the fact is that Scotland is part of the UK.
And majority decisions include all areas.
And when the umpire (a majority) rules, that should be the end of the matter, and an end to opposition?
In this case, that should apply for at least a generation or two?
Those in Scotland who keep 'rattling sabres' seem to me to be on a road to nowhere.
They can't lead people to a different outcome.
The matter has been decided.
They need to get on with life now?