"British politics after Brexit: reflections on the last three years and the next fifty" with Lord Su
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2020
- Lord Sumption will discuss the impact on our constitution and political system of the referendum of 2016 and its aftermath.
Oxford Martin School,
University of Oxford
www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk
Fantastic, interesting talk from Lord Sumption.
Thankyou ❤️
This has lecture constitutes one of the few exposures to the thoughts of Lord Sumption which I have enjoyed,all of which have occurred over the last several days.In my opinion the man is a marvellous individual, wonderfully lucid and entertaining in the manner of his presentation.I will look for further opportunities to listen to his views.
I was never convinced that MP's putting legislation into our laws directly from the EU was something we had a parliament for, basically, the examination of legislation is the job of of our elected representatives, based on situations mostly in the UK, and I wasn't particularly happy about the direction the EU was going in. Incidently, I was always in opposition of John Major's Maastricht Treaty.
well said ,,accountability is the key ingredient thats missing from the dictates of the EU legislation process to its "partner" states. What possible choice does any uk national or political party have to register a complaint or to modify the legislation if it comes prepacked and sealed from brussels?
@hognoxious Indirect representation, as opposed to direct representation. We get to vote for our MP's, we don't get to vote for unelected EU bureaucrats making EU laws. That being, democratic accountability. There are 8 MP's covering the Leeds area( just checked). Not that I have much faith in democracy, but that's neither here nor there.
@hognoxious because locally you can clear the lot of them out, and nationally WE can all clear them out ,,wether they like it or not every local councillor and every local MP is accountable for their actions or lack of them,,where or what city the national parliament is in is irrelevant,,and err Brussels is,nt near Leeds either
Sumption is a remainer. That aspect of British sovereignty is therefore wholly absent from anything he says because he could bring up no *constitutional* reason for it legitimately being that way. He also has the peculiar idea that the British somehow got their key values from 'ancient Rome'. That's news to me, to say the least.
@@claywithers523 How come you did NOT get to vote for EU bureaucrats? 🤨
When the UK was a member of the EU, you guys DID send representatives to the parliament in Brussels. Your people sat in the European Parliament and decided on the laws, regulations and treaties. These MPs were elected by the UK. How is that NOT democratic?
Appointment of the bureaucrats you disdain happens through the Parliament and European Comission, both staffed by YOUR democratically elected people.
That's at least as democratic as the UK currently is. Since the EU is using proportionate representation, it's arguably MORE democratic than the UK.
Your "lack of faith in democracy" is a obviously founded in misunderstandings and lies or a personal need for a "strong leader". 😮💨
This was a very powerful lecture that sends strong signals to the memory. I wish I could one time be invited to attend such a lecture at no cost because I have no money to pay for transport, and welfare.
How interesting!
His speech drained all of his calmness from his body. I don't know if this was recommended to me because I follow Brexit or because I follow ASMR
Thank you for uploading this. Extremely interesting to hear Sumption's opinion on the issue
@Carl Yelland He has expressed disapproval of the 1975 referendum, on multiple occasions. He objects to all referenda, because they usurp the function of representative democracy.
@Carl Yelland Without a referendum, if the people cared so much about leaving the EU, they would have eventually voted in a pro-Brexit Parliament.
@@bradleymurphy9742 Surely a general election is a form of referenda which maintains democracy. In the case of Brexit it was one off decision virtually demanded by the situation, when decisions made abroad, were seriously damaging and changing the face of our country. As can be seen by the totally awful state our capital city is in.
Only the common people can feel and see, the worst effects of EU law which controls our country, and thank heavens our Tory Govt gave us the opportunity to choose which future path we wanted.
@Carl Yelland Well said Carl, you are absolutely correct. Our so called Academics are so insulated and isolated that they no longer have any credence at all.
My dear Lord Sumption
Thank you so much Sir.
A full room..... well, we would cherish this today all the more
Enjoyed every minute of this fascinating talk and Q&A.
The trouble is that Boris and his handler are driving a truck through British constitutional ‘convention’.
On completion it becomes the new convention.
How convenient !
I admire the people who walked out as soon as the lecture finished. The lecturer himself was very uncomfortable with his constant movements and did not show confidence as he paused and stuttered thro it. He was a remainer and realised he was declaring his bias but without any confidence. Not a good example of British intelligent lectures, or sadly, the quality of our universities. He gave no reason how democracy is served by the EU, when we have non elected officers being chosen behind closed doors.
@@razachaswills5076 oh for god’s sake, he has a nervous condition much like many other people of our age.
Squirm as much as you like and engineer another line of guilty and excuses for this utter shambles by the incompetent.
@@razachaswills5076 what a stupid thing to say. Lord Sumption was not only a Justice of the Supreme Court of the UK, but also an eminent writer on constitutional history. I suppose you’d prefer someone who didn’t have physical medical problem but just patiently hounded political nonsense that suites your agenda. Idiots like you poison our society.
Brilliant talk, well considered.
votin is a divine privilege and NOT to b violated or made 'problematic' for citizens
this is definitely more nourishing than other social media junk
If there was no difference between the judicial committee of the House of Lords and the Supreme Court why did they bother to create the Supreme Court ?
To create a proper separation of powers, parliament and the courts are supposed to be independent and not every influence ver each other! The House of Lords sits as part of parliament therefore had a foot in both camps which was less than ideal. The creation of the supreme court was the best way to achieve this.
@@tammycarroll6814 Our constitution has never had a complete SoP and that is probably a good thing.
@@tammycarroll6814 I recommend David Starkey's views on the creation of a 'Supreme Court' and the implications of a 'separation of powers' which is wholly un-British. If you want a textbook case of how things (or, rather, anything) *shouldn't* be done look at the USA.
duly noted
gmornin all
If the powers of the Supreme Court and the Law Lords are identical and a distinction with no difference, why did we need something new called 'The Supreme Court'? Why waste all that time and money?
Mostly so that the Law Lords could perform their judicial tasks without interfering with the functioning of the House of Lords.
i find it curious straight off, that he discusses our Constitution in terms of changes made in the 1870's and then seemingly nothing until 2016. The constitution(s) of Palmer and Disraeli did not provide for us to be ruled by the Continent. Nor were the changes an 'accident'.
you were never ruled by the continent. you cannot use false as a foundation for argument.
@Carl Yelland And still are if you want to trade with E U.
@Chaz Which you wrote, amongst others, IIRC about 96% of it anyway
We have never been "ruled" by the "continent". That is the foolish thought of a silly child. If we had been, what was the purpose of Parliament? In that case, what was the point of Cameron and his silly chums and their equally silly referendum. Their only thought was the saving of the Conservative Party and nothing to do with the good of the State or its citizens.
yes
Angels
I wish the tone of this brexit debate was informed by the thoughtful tone of this meeting
Me too.
Brexit was bad for two reasons. The policy itself was bad, but I honestly think the effect it has had on our political culture has done more damage to this country than leaving a trading bloc ever could. And, it is worth noting, this debasing of political norms was a deliberate policy pursued by Vote Leave, because they thought they stood a better chance in a muddy arm wrestle than in a well-refereed fight.
But it makes calm, measured and dispassionate commentary like this feel as though it is from another universe.
one of the requirements for this tone however is that everybody agrees about eveyrthing important already. I am afraid they don't anymore- so how will we discuss it?
@@riccardoverde4683 It doesn't require that at all.
The idea that people used to "agree about everything important" is utter horseshit. It may have been a tenable claim for the briefest period in the mid-noughties when Blair was slowly declining and Cameron was in his "hug-a-hoodie" phase. But do you think, say, Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot used to stand at their dispatch boxes and furiously agree with one another? But they were still civil, they still played the man, not the ball, they still assumed good faith and that assumption of good faith was largely justified.
What has changed is the constant norm-breaking behaviour of Johnson, Cummings & Vote Leave. They have worked out how to play dirty without getting punished for it. And once you do that, other parties get dragged down to their level - I don't like drawing transatlantic comparisons, but Hilary Clinton made a big thing about fair play - "when they go low, we'll go high" - and how did that end up working out for her? There is a strong incentive, once Pandora's box has been opened, for everyone to sink to the lowest common denominator. The genie will not go back in the bottle.
@@alexpotts6520 first of all you have already stooped to calling what i said 'horseshit', which rather undoes a lot of what of the rest of what you say, and rather supports what I said!
I'll give you an example- race. The racial make=up of england is the outstanding difference that anyone pre-1950s would immediately observe about todays england. Is that up for discussion, in anything but positive terms?
@@riccardoverde4683 Yes! It is up for discussion! Politicians discuss immigration all the time! And the same politicians who are constantly talking about it are the same ones who are constantly complaining that they are not allowed to talk about it!
And, it's not like politicians didn't talk about it in the past, either. Ever heard of Enoch Powell?
I hasten to disagree on a number of points, but it is interesting to hear what he has to say.
I'd like to ask him what was 'authoritarian' about Trump and why UKIP were extreme in his view.
@@jennyaskswhy I didn't ask you. I was chiming with your disagreement on a number of points. I thought I'd articulate two of my number of points.
Obviobsly there have been a dramitic decrease in comb imports.
About time we had a written constitution... along with a Federal Britain.
Interesting... Perhaps check out Sumption's view on this idea...
Yes, hundreds of years of wrangling over what the original drafters of the legislation meant, really. How useful.
Kent Invicta.
The Cameron government proved clearly that it couldn’t run a chook raffle efficiently.
I just think public opinion - and a perceived lack of accountabillity from euro law makers was the nail in the coffin for remainers cause
@@marcperrett662 I don’t understand how anything was agreed to if every member had the right to veto.
@@davidpearn5925 I think it pays to remember the Blair/Brown cameron years were very pro-europe ,it would,nt have even occured to tony blair to mount a veto on something he has a passionate belief in, he would have been a proponent and architect of the wording of such a treaty,,i believe he has stated since that he knew any referenda on the subject could be troublesome to achieving his goal.
At the time before the enlargement the european project held fairly high ratings in polls taken at the time.
i think by 2016 public opinion had shifted away,making camerons remain positition over europe a very hard sell
@@marcperrett662 The ERG/£arage/JRM flat earth society would not be too keen on having a proper plebiscite of 100% of the 16+ population, knowing what a shambles and broken promises is threatening now.
So much for seamless trade !
@@davidpearn5925 do you actually read what you,ve posted? complete nonsense,,,peoples minds were already made up long before Farage or the ERG poked their noses in,,seamless trade is a non starter ,,picking apart 47 years of trade agreements may take 10 years to sort out ,only a moron would expect anything else .its not easy or ideal BUT, it is where were at, the EU are a difficult entity to do a trade deal with,most of the cards are stacked in their favour,
most 16 year olds dont give a toss about politics or the key players
Law and decline of politics yes
Bercow was blatantly partisan.
That is precisely not the role of the Speaker.
@@neekBG3
If you’re right, how do you explain his denial of entry to the H of L?
@@neekBG3
Let me address your pedantic reply. Okay, if your ‘opinion’ is right. And noticing that the Prime Minister is not part of this thread that’s going to be rather difficult isn’t it! (Sorry, I obviously made the mistake of thinking you were up to some sort of rational discussion.)
Dave Roberts
It’s bizarre for you to make a comment that is not up for discussion but that is of course a matter for you.
Dave Roberts
Admirably passive-aggressive.
What you say may be part of it. The other aspect is he was partisan. Look at the current speaker ... that’s how it’s done, free of bias and ego fuelled interventions.
Dave Roberts
That is absolutely fine. Just a pity we took this rather tortuous route to achieve the situation where we can agree to disagree.
Thank goodness Australians don’t have the freedom to NOT vote and we DO vote down the ticket and they ALL count.
got a problem with freedom in victoria at the moment though I hear.
Utd 4 the league Utd 4 the league only misinformation from Murdoch/shockjock media.........the unqualified opinionated.
Granny is expendable apparently
@@davidpearn5925 ah i see, so are people's liberties and rights too, and the economy, and the children's futures......all expendable......granny much more important.
I thought people considered the poverty line to be real, that poor people didnt always live healthy, happy, fulfilling lives. I always thought wealth went hand in hand with longevity. Turns out we were all wrong, when you massively shrink a GDP, everyone just gets a little bit poorer, but nobody ever dies. Turns out the government has a money forest that keeps pumping out funds for public services to cope with everything, It doesn't borrow it off the next 3 generations or so. The government is also capable of resurrecting all the people that died of CHD and cancer etc that didnt get the care they required when they suspended all surgery for granny. I am so glad the government are there for us all, don't know what we would do without them. I'm happy granny can get a few extra months.
Utd 4 the league Utd 4 the league enjoy your second wave in the Cummings approved manner. It will be vastly superior I’m sure.
@@davidpearn5925 yikes! There's going to be a second wave?
next 50 yes
serious decisions to b made
Starts at 3:10
Very interesting. But Lord Sumption did not deal with two glaring deficiencies in the way the 2016 Referendum was conducted.
First, in most countries where a constitutional issue of national and lasting importance is to be voted on, a certain majority threshold must be reached: 55%, 60% majorities are common requirements. In the UK, a majority of the thinnest kind was allowed to dictate the future course of the nation. This is surely a major defect.
Secondly, the UK referendum was not truly democratically representative of the UK population. No expatriate British citizens were allowed to vote in the Referendum because of the UK law against this type of franchise: in Switzerland, to which Lord Sumption referred, national referendums are voted on by all Swiss, including the c. 10% who live outside the country. This means that even the expatriate Swiss can vote on the future of their country in referendums, such as the recent one of whether to continue accepting free movement of people treaty arrangements with the EU.
i dont remember the brits getting the vote on free movement
-expats still only encompass a small number of uk nationals who could be argued are living under the laws of another state,if you,ve lived in aus or new zealand most of your adult life why should you have a vote on a country that you dont live in or intend to go back to? the brexit vote was,nt expected to be lost by david cameron so setting targets for voter percentages was,nt a prority,,,
if the vote had been the other way round do you think the remainers would have had a "peoples vote" to help decide the result,i think not
@@marcperrett662 The point I was making was that decisions on the future of a country, such as Brexit, are so important that they are best tested against the will of the entire population (including those citizens outside the country on the date the vote happens to be held). That way, one would obtain a truly democratic result, voted on by the maximum number of citizens.
The Brexit vote will have a direct impact on c. 1.5 million British citizens currently living in the EU: they should surely have a voice, even if they (on the day of the vote) were not resident in the UK. As regards the objection that a voter should be resident and pay tax etc. in the country holding the vote, there are important examples of countries who follow a different approach- the USA and Switzerland being two such countries. And in these days of good communications, postal or electronic votes would make such voting by expatriates very easy to organise.
I also don't think adding UK expats to the voting pool would necessarily skew the result: given the age, income and demographic profile of UK expats living in the EU, it is quite likely that a substantial number would still have voted for Brexit.
But the UK has made its electoral choice, so will now have to live with the result. I think it will take a decade to assess whether the choice was a good one, politically, culturally, socially and economically.
@@freespirit995 i can honestly see your point but many of those expats are generally "gone for good" and have no cards in the game,the many others that are on long term work contracts and/or have married foriegn nationals may very well come back to the uk,,i still contend that without the vote affecting your present living situation in another nation ,brexit is/was a vote for us living here.
I honestly have a very realistic notion of the realities of the brexit vote especially in the short term,,personally the perceived mistakes for me occured with entering into euro union treaties with no assent from the uk populace ,,the EU just does,nt like referenda,especially after the mess that the irish,dutch and french made to hold up the acceptance of Lisbon back in the noughties
Just another example of english Tory incompetence and arrogance for purely self preservation reasons also.
Shambolic.
Irrelevant. The opinion of those who didn't vote must be added to the winning vote, because the effect of their not voting is to say' Whoever wins it's fine by me.' So the vote was actually a larger majority than the bald figures suggest if you count them in. One way of avoiding this outcome is through compulsory voting.
haven't spoken to him a few days k
Every last solitary respect to Lord Sumption, but a disingenuous answer to two posed questions; To say there is no difference between the Law Lords and Supreme Court? Posturing? The Supreme Court is a European Court that Considers European Law, not British Law, and the interests of the European Executive over our domestic situation. To say 'the younger generation (Supreme Court) are more cautious'... of course they are! It has nothing to do with naivete or innocence, and everything to do with what could be lost at this time.
@Sofie Dunbar A rebranding? Is that what schools are teaching???? The High Court was the top British Court upholding British Law. The Supreme Court upholds EU Law/domestic legisilation to comply with EU Law. They are NOT one and same thing. Until our High Courts and British Law is reinstated, we are still effectively 'in' the EU.
@Sofie Dunbar Ex members of the EU.
You talk about the ECHR like it's a good thing! Perhaps you think it looks after you? It does not. It's a tool of the EU Interreg programme designed to smash Nation States, like a bird smashes it's shellfish lunch on a nearby stone.
I know they've taken offline the Interreg I, II, III, IV etc. Doesn't mean it didn't exist.
The ignorance on display here is monumental and saddening at the same time. Such monstrous ignorance of the true facts requires an answer. The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the UK and nothing more it can take only cases referred from the Court of Appeal. It takes the place of the Law Lords sitting in the House of Lords. You really need some better level of education on the Constitution both of this Country and of the EU. A brief overview of the "Competences " of the EU would have stood you in good stead before you started uttering inanities in this comments section.
today I saw an extremely immense person of higher realms as a beggar with a beard on the ground in flatbush
meritocracy yes yes yes
Whilst it's probably true that a Formal Constitution would not have weathered the travails of BREXIT, were Britain to have had a Formal Constitution the BREXIT Crisis would probably not have arisen...
yes right now but
or geography
His twitch is distracting so its better to look at something else while listening to the lecture.
@Carl Yelland I stand to be corrected Carly.
Of course Oxford arrogantly assumes it will 'shape the future'. LOL
@Rahul Kemp Learn English you plonker!
Well it is with the vaccine.
The premise of Lord Sumption's argument is incorrect. It is not true to say that the sole source of legitimacy of a government is the House of Commons. A Government may need the support of the House of Commons in order to raise taxes, but that is not the same thing. The Government's powers come from the Crown Prerogatives, and existing statutes. The House of Commons can challenge, criticise and legislate. But the government's legal powers derive from the appointment of a Prime Minister by the Crown. The prime minister then forms a government. The House of Commons gets no say in the appointment of the prime minister, and has no say in the choice of ministers. The House of Commons can pass a vote of no confidence, or deny the government the right to raise taxes and that may force a government to resign. The EU Parliament can dismiss the EU Commission, but no-one would say that the Commission derives its legitimacy from EU Parliament; its legitimacy comes from the EU Treaties.
I wish
fellowship 1970's
wtf with the door all the time
with all due respect m'lord k?
Johnson yes yes yes
feel me elonnee
my choice of stocks doin great based on my personal experience with those companies (I haven't any money in stocks okay)
Sumpton blames the referendum for dividing the kingdom, whereas it was merely symptomatic of that division!
Spot on, the divide was there, which is why we had the vote.
He just hated the result
You are half-right. There was division in the country, but it wasn't about Brexit. Prior to 2016, only a handful of obsessives cared very much at all about Britain's membership of the EU. You can see this from "what are the most important issues facing the country?" polling, where "Europe" only ever got about 1% most of the time. You can see it in the woeful turnout figures for European Parliament elections in Britain. We, as a country, just did not care.
There was, however, a broader cultural divide, not really even about government policy at all, but about fundamentally different worldviews, which I have seen referred to as "closed" and "open". The political consensus for decades and decades had been "open, paying lip service to closed when electorally useful." This is largely because, normally, the route to being an MP involves having a relatively eventful life beforehand, and this makes our political representatives instinctively more comfortable with a fast pace of change than the average voter.
Brexit, in effect, became a proxy war over this divide. We ended up in a parliamentary stalemate, arguing incessantly about technicalities that the voters whose decision had led to that stalemate didn't care about. And the upshot is that there and a half years of Brexit debate ultimately did nothing to address the underlying concerns, because the EU is just a trading bloc.
Three and a half years of paralysis. Three and a half years lost, when the government could have been tackling homelessness, social care, stagnant productivity, planning reform, obesity, prisons... all that opportunity, vanished. And we *haven't* *even* *addressed* *the* *issues* *that* *motivated* *the* *leave* *voters.*
Was it worth it?
If what you write is true, very few would have voted to leave
The issue's people had with the EU were there, no amount of esoteric bullshit will convince people otherwise
@@savethefamily-savetheworld5539 I'm not saying that they didn't want to leave. I'm saying that Europe wasn't important to them until the opportunity to vote against it came along.
There was no divide, there was just apathy.
@@alexpotts6520 i find it abstruse you come to such a conclusion.
Its a tad oxymoronic to say there was a divide, but the divide was merely embued with apathy, intransigence.
If that was the case, then how did brexit become a reality out of this apathy?
idk
not totally exactly us but
I'm not good at history
trust him infinity
was good at math and science until Joseph said do u know math lol
we're sum1 to ask me whether nuclear was an option I would say God is like get me the hell outta here seriously but funnily
gonna b sum hackin here k
I'm tired
hi sorry Joseph interrupted facetiously
2012 to 2018 k
I wholly disagree with Sumption on the TV licence, it is totally inequitous to tax people under the threat of criminal prosecution for the purpose of watching broadcast television and in my view a breach of human rights to make one pay for something they don't want. The more I hear from Sumption this less sure I am about him.
hi
I love to listen to lord sumption. I think he is the constitutional referee we need, but I do think he has a huge brexit shaped blind spot. I don't think anyone would dare to argue that he's wrong about the constitution, although unwritten constitutions are always open to interpretation, he never looks behind the actions people took in interpreting the constitution to their own ends. Boris Johnson acted unconstitutionally in proroguing parliament, but did so because MPs were blocking brexit, against the wishes of the majority of the population. In light of a parliament which stands against his promise to get brexit done, it was a political decision to prorogue, not a legal one and one he thought necessary to uphold his political promise. MPs, denied the ability to stop brexit, used the courts to thwart Johnson's plan. They didn't do it to protect the constitution, but to protect the EU. It was a political matter, settled in the courts by politically motivated actors who could gladly hide behind a forgiving constitution. That's why some are against the judgment and the judges and I don't think he's so naive not to understand this.
k gettin visitors
my dear tottellee remortgaged his house to giv Joseph and I money to hav little jake
lol
Defender of the faith
This gent is the problem not the solution. Needs to make it sound complicated when it's not. "Just leave" should be the slogan! Why these old time legal hacks have to talk and talk and talk and....
"Just leave" is an effective slogan, but a rubbish set of instructions.
@@alexpotts6520 ...and even worse as a plan.
Not even a plan. Not even a very good slogan. And a shit course of action for the future of this Country.
normandy?
where in the world is me elonnee can u please LET ME KNOW HE IS SAFE
Dan brown written by me elonnee I can hear his thots in it amazin
funny romantic omg
aliens wonnerful aliens
idk anythin regardin eu
Does Lord Sumption have early symptoms of Parkinson’s? He appears to be compensating for a latent twitch.
Daniel Plainview I noticed that, too. Some athetoid movements but no sign of tremor . I think he has some neurological problem going on.
Hes Old man shhhhh wise ass
He has had it for years and I am sure he has been checked out. If anything, it has lessened from his time as a SC Justice. Long live such an intelligent and contributing conscience.
Peter Barnes I don’t think the physical issue has lessened since seeing him on his feet at Brick. But it wasn’t a criticism and he doesn’t exhibit cognitive decline. Indeed long live this great and thoughtful human.
Lord Sumption has for a very long time had a body forever in motion. He is as brilliant, knowledgeable and wise as ever.
kinda richard feynman but not
I stopped midway. Mr Sumpton is obviously a remainer, therefore, although I enjoy the English language so eloquently precisely spoken, I am not interested in what he has to say re Brexit.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll do that now. I only came here after I saw him slap that bitch down on the BBC.
errol kim Sumpton is right on the lockdown issue but totally wrong on Brexit.
@@misterm1336 I tend to agree, his notion of convention seemed only to apply to his natural, visceral leanings, case in point, his adoration of Bercos bifurcation from convention in his attempts to subvert the referendum result.
Hume was right, we are oriented by our feelings, which is why highly intelligent individuals knowingly act in ways that are evidently malevolent.
You're kind of proving the points he made...
@@alexpotts6520 Sure. Roll on Brexit.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! Australia's compulsory voting ensures the lack of any extremist rule, please look at our record and try to prove otherwise. The middle way is the essence of Australian's stable politics.
A Remainer's perspective.
One of the greatest minds of Britain’s perspective. I voted to leave, but to boil down this lecture to that of simply being a remainer is not fair.
Quite obviously you've not understood even the basic issues. Go back to your banjo-playing, child - this discussion is for grown-ups.
@@elizabetamedvedeva We all need to stop this vitriol. Let's come together and all discuss this in a mature way.
@@elizabetamedvedeva Typical remoaner response. Silence dissenters!
@@alexlongman5053 He is cautious and balanced. His remarks on the lockdown are welcomed if still somewhat on the credulous side.
The roomy carol disappointedly press because dirt concurringly shade abaft a smooth pants. hushed, receptive copper
Hi Kathleen 👋 I hope my comment didn't sound as a form of privacy invasion your comment tells of a wonderful woman with a beautiful heart which led me to comment I don't normally write in the comment section but I think you deserve this complement. If you don’t mind can we be friends? Thanks God bless you….
?
eu
deranged deranged run for ur lives
A bitter remoaner who it seems is unable to tie a tie properly.
And a stupid leaver who has a very misleading and disingenuous "nickname".
yes
hi
lol
yes
hi
hi