Crosswords1 min ago
Who On Earth Elected May?
She’s like having found an angry pregnant opossum under your kitchen table who doesn’t want to leave but one things for sure, you’re going to make if leave.
https:/
She’s tired, old, haggard and just not up for the job or any pm job.
I wanted a vibrant young fighter in our corner not this miserable bag lady past her sellby date.
Brexit is going to be her crusifiction, mark my words.
Good riddance to old rubbish is what I say.
https:/
She’s tired, old, haggard and just not up for the job or any pm job.
I wanted a vibrant young fighter in our corner not this miserable bag lady past her sellby date.
Brexit is going to be her crusifiction, mark my words.
Good riddance to old rubbish is what I say.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Minkyme. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Not sure Johnson had much choice after Gove stabbed him in the back.//
Why do people keep saying that? He ran away from the job like all of them except May. None of them thought leave was actually going to win, including Boris.
I'll never forget his face as he was leaving his house on the morning after his 'victory'. If ever an expression said 'Oh S.. what do I do now?', it was that one.
Why do people keep saying that? He ran away from the job like all of them except May. None of them thought leave was actually going to win, including Boris.
I'll never forget his face as he was leaving his house on the morning after his 'victory'. If ever an expression said 'Oh S.. what do I do now?', it was that one.
"Why do people keep saying that? "
Because it is the case. After Gove went for Boris there was no way he could win, to have continued would have wrecked any chance he would have in the future. Why would someone enter a contest they knew they couldnt win and jeopardize future attempts? Pretty sure you wouldn't.
Because it is the case. After Gove went for Boris there was no way he could win, to have continued would have wrecked any chance he would have in the future. Why would someone enter a contest they knew they couldnt win and jeopardize future attempts? Pretty sure you wouldn't.
“How that can be spun to be the remainer's fault is completely illogical.”
Not Really, Zacs.
The question was put to the country whether they wanted to leave or remain. The leavers prevailed. All the hoo-hah since June 2016 has been, essentially, about retaining as many features of our EU membership as possible whilst (on paper anyway) “leaving”. There was never any proper consideration given to, or plans put in place for leaving properly.
Ever since the vote, those politicians (many in government themselves) and others who wished to remain have been continually scraping away at the government to acquiesce to an agreement which amounts to “Brino” (Brexit In Name Only). They refuse to accept that leaving and behaving as a “normal” nation is the only sensible option which meets the definition of leaving. "Project Fear" (now up to phase 94 or thereabouts) continues to thrive and only this week the ridiculous notion that flights between the UK and the EU would be halted should we "crash out" without a deal.
It is often said that, with such a thin majority for leaving, the wishes of the 48% who voted to remain should be considered. I’ve absolutely no idea why this should be so. The question was binary, the remainers lost. I’ve never heard it asked whether, had the result been 52:48 in favour of remaining, whether (or indeed how) the wishes of the leavers would have been accommodated. I have a sneaky suspicion that on June 24th 2016 it would have been announced “Well that’s that nonsense over with. Now let’s get back to normal” (or something similar).
Since the referendum those wishing to remain have sought ways to hinder the “negotiations” by making less than sensible demands for the country to retain the essential features of EU membership (most of which were well aired before the vote). These demands have compromised the talks and the EU knows it very well. The country (and indeed its government) should have presented a united front that demonstrated that we were leaving, come what may and whilst we would love to continue trading and cooperating with our European neighbours (as normal countries across the globe do with theirs) we will no longer blindly accept or comply with their legislation, we will no longer be subject to their court of arbitration, we will no longer be paying them any money and we will not tolerate any sort of border on the island of Ireland which hinders the movement of goods or people into the UK. Only once that had been established could talks move on in a sensible fashion. Regretfully the reason it did not was because appeasement of the Remainers was deemed necessary to keep them “onside” in order to implement the results of a vote which they lost.
Not Really, Zacs.
The question was put to the country whether they wanted to leave or remain. The leavers prevailed. All the hoo-hah since June 2016 has been, essentially, about retaining as many features of our EU membership as possible whilst (on paper anyway) “leaving”. There was never any proper consideration given to, or plans put in place for leaving properly.
Ever since the vote, those politicians (many in government themselves) and others who wished to remain have been continually scraping away at the government to acquiesce to an agreement which amounts to “Brino” (Brexit In Name Only). They refuse to accept that leaving and behaving as a “normal” nation is the only sensible option which meets the definition of leaving. "Project Fear" (now up to phase 94 or thereabouts) continues to thrive and only this week the ridiculous notion that flights between the UK and the EU would be halted should we "crash out" without a deal.
It is often said that, with such a thin majority for leaving, the wishes of the 48% who voted to remain should be considered. I’ve absolutely no idea why this should be so. The question was binary, the remainers lost. I’ve never heard it asked whether, had the result been 52:48 in favour of remaining, whether (or indeed how) the wishes of the leavers would have been accommodated. I have a sneaky suspicion that on June 24th 2016 it would have been announced “Well that’s that nonsense over with. Now let’s get back to normal” (or something similar).
Since the referendum those wishing to remain have sought ways to hinder the “negotiations” by making less than sensible demands for the country to retain the essential features of EU membership (most of which were well aired before the vote). These demands have compromised the talks and the EU knows it very well. The country (and indeed its government) should have presented a united front that demonstrated that we were leaving, come what may and whilst we would love to continue trading and cooperating with our European neighbours (as normal countries across the globe do with theirs) we will no longer blindly accept or comply with their legislation, we will no longer be subject to their court of arbitration, we will no longer be paying them any money and we will not tolerate any sort of border on the island of Ireland which hinders the movement of goods or people into the UK. Only once that had been established could talks move on in a sensible fashion. Regretfully the reason it did not was because appeasement of the Remainers was deemed necessary to keep them “onside” in order to implement the results of a vote which they lost.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Shopping & Style12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.