How nuclear weapons violate your rights

 

Most of us have an idea how nuclear bombs work; history has taught us just how destructive they are. However, the argument still persists that world peace can only be achieved when the most powerful nations have enough of them to guarantee upon each other, mutually assured destruction. At this present time, with the renewal of Trident firmly on the Government’s agenda, I feel now is a good time for people to express their views on the morality, legality, and practicality of utilizing nuclear weapons.

The after effects of detonating nuclear bombs are well documented. The fallout unleashed by current nuclear weapons would create an environment that is so radioactive that future generations of people will almost certainly be affected by it. This situation leads to a challenging question: If generations that had nothing to do with a war that was fought at a time prior to their birth, but suffer the effects of that war even after it has ended, then is that not a catastrophic infringement of article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that states: ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family’ (Un.org, 2016)? If you have to suffer radiation poisoning through no fault of your own, through actions that took place before you were born, then how can it be said your right to a healthy life is being protected?

Moreover, if we analyze the declaration of Human rights, specifically, Article 3, it is clearly stated that: ‘people have the right to life, liberty and security of person’ (Un.org. 2016).  This clause is further backed up by Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights which also states: ‘No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.’ (RightsInfo, 2016)

The above quote helps clarify the point made about future generations having their rights infringed upon because they are forced to suffer dire consequences to their health due to the actions of a previous generation’s war. It also brings us on to the subject of how we treat civilians in wartime. The Geneva Convention established protocols following the horrors of the Second World War that explicitly protects civilians from military aggression. The deliberate murder of civilians by shooting, bombing or by any other means is strictly prohibited.  However a glaring contraction to this legislation can be seen in states that are prepared to use nuclear weapons.

It is estimated that up to 39,000 civilians died in Nagasaki and a further 66,000 in Hiroshima as a result of the blasts unleashed by the two atomic bombs in 1945. The targeting of those cities was deliberate, and though these events took place prior to the signing of the protocols in the Geneva Convention that protects civilians in war it provides a stark warning of the horrors wrought upon civilian populations by this type of warfare.

Looking at this particular moment in history with the knowledge that our current nuclear weapons are infinitely more destructive than the ones unleashed in the Second World War, how can we justify their use when this kind of warfare is empirically shown to be suffered almost exclusively by civilian populations? Is this not a direct violation of the protocols laid down in the Geneva Convention as well as Article’s 3 and 25 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The price to Human dignity at the expense of nuclear weapons is clear. Guaranteeing mutual destruction to entire Civilian populations, as well as exposing future generations to a significant reduction in the quality of their lives grossly violates the very laws that have assured us our own protection from horrifying abuses of state power. Nuclear weapons may allow us a tremulous peace, but is such a peace worth it in the face of such tragic contradictions to modern philosophical thought?

 

* Craig Palmer is currently a Liberal Democrat Parish Councillor in the Hamble ward, of the city of Eastleigh.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

38 Comments

  • Thank goodness you have posted this Craig. It restores one’s faith in decent human nature.

    I have spent most of this evening watching the Trident debate in the House of Commons on TV. It was a dispiriting affair. The only real contributions of any depth came from Crispin Blunt, the Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee who prized out the cost of Trident replacement at £ 179 billion. There was also a passionate and well informed speech from Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and a number of very effective speeches from the SNP – in my view highlighting issues the Liberal Democrats should have been raising.

    I’m afraid the Lib Dems did not cover themselves in glory. Only Tom Brake was in evidence for much of the debate….. and his contribution was based on what is – by a thread – existing party policy of three subs not four. I’m sad to say it came across as a watered down status quo without any passion or conviction.

    I have to be frank and say it was very disappointing.

    I

  • simon mcgrath 18th Jul '16 - 9:34pm

    Yes nuclear weapons are horrible things. That why we need to deter anyone from using on the UK. The best way of doing that is for them to know we would retaliate. That doesn’t mean Trident necasarily: it does mean a credibly robust delivery mechanism.

  • Craig Palmer 18th Jul '16 - 9:37pm

    I couldn’t agree more David. I was especially horrified when Theresa May said she would push the button and arbitrarily end the lives of over 100,000 people just because we have to ‘send a clear message to our enemies’. How can she possibly classify civilians as our enemies?

    The only message she is sending is one of supreme ignorance to the fundamental philosophies that protect us from people like her, who claim that civilians are fair game in a state of war.

    I truly hope human decency triumphs tonight.

  • Eddie Sammon 18th Jul '16 - 9:45pm

    I don’t think I support Trident. It is very difficult because we have to defend ourselves, but think of how upset we are when we see the dead children from Nice. Using a nuclear weapon would be lot worse than that.

    I understand Theresa May’s position though. If you support building it then you should publicly support using it. Can’t just build it for the jobs and to keep the Unions happy, as many point out Labour keep telling each other.

  • However, the argument still persists that world peace can only be achieved when the most powerful nations have enough of them to guarantee upon each other, mutually assured destruction

    That is not the argument.

    The argument is that if we give ours up, and other, less stable or trustworthyncountries do not, that makes the world, and more specifically us, less, not more, safe.

    So until a way can be found to ensure that those other, less stable or trustworthy countries give up all their nuclear weapons, we must keep ours.

    After all, imagine a world in which only Russia had nuclear weapons. I think it’s pretty obvious that in such a world, Putin would have by now have used a nuclear weapon. What stops him from doing so? Only the fact that other countries, mainly but not only the USA, also have them.

    Therefore, we must keep at least a minimum credible second-strike deterrent.

  • It is now certain. The only way to remove WMD from the Clyde is for Scotland to vote for the EU and independence in a “Which Union?” referendum. A vote for the Brexit UK is a vote for Trident.

    The EU doesn’t station WMD in its member states against the wishes of the governments, elected officials and people of those states. We need to take back control of our foreign and defence policy from Westminster.

    As for the jobs argument, the MoD revealed in 2012 that 520 civilian jobs rely on Trident. The cost is conservatively of the order of £160bn over its 40 year lifespan or about £4bn per year. That equates to a cost of over £7.6m per job per year. That has to be one of the most inefficient job creation schemes ever! You could, for example, pay 160,000 people £25,000 per year for the same amount of money, wiping out unemployment in Scotland at a stroke.

  • Party policy is for a minimal yet credible nuclear deterrent, keeping the nuclear option open. Credible means a willingness to use it if attacked with nuclear weapons. I support party policy.

  • Paul Kennedy 18th Jul '16 - 11:14pm

    I have seen a tweet from Tim saying he voted No to like-for-like replacement. How did the others vote?

  • Craig Palmer 19th Jul '16 - 12:08am

    Tim.

    ‘However, the argument still persists that world peace can only be achieved when the most powerful nations have enough of them to guarantee upon each other, mutually assured destruction

    That is not the argument.’

    You then go on to say:
    ‘After all, imagine a world in which only Russia had nuclear weapons. I think it’s pretty obvious that in such a world, Putin would have by now have used a nuclear weapon. What stops him from doing so? Only the fact that other countries, mainly but not only the USA, also have them.’

    You have demonstrated that the mutually assured destruction scenario is the current argument for keeping Nuclear weapons. You just asserted that to keep Putin from launching nuclear attacks he would need to be fearful of nuclear retaliation from other states, hence M.A.D.

    Also

    ‘So until a way can be found to ensure that those other, less stable or trustworthy countries give up all their nuclear weapons, we must keep ours.’

    A good place to start would be to show the world that there are countries that are willing to abandon their nuclear weapons in order to adhere to the United Nation’s Declaration of Human rights, The European Convention of Human rights, and the Geneva Convention.

    Britain eliminating its nuclear weapons to abide by those laws would not give Putin, or whoever else is perceived to be our enemy’s free reign to nuke us into oblivion. There will be no nuclear weapons flying our way as long as we are members of NATO.

    Moreover there are Historical examples of the two great nuclear powers (America and Russia) very closely coming together to significantly reduce the amount of nuclear weapons that they stockpiled

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Summit
    and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Option

    We had the opportunity tonight to send a profound message to the world on the morality of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately we failed, but the campaign continues, and I, like many others hope that one day we will be free from a world that points nuclear weapons at its citizens.

  • Katharine Pindar 19th Jul '16 - 12:28am

    Well done, Craig. I remember the passionate, well-attended debate at Conference last September, and wanted to hear Liberal Democrat voices on this tonight. Personally I am with you, having always been a CND member and former activist with Milton Keynes Peace Campaign. There is a lot more peaceful fighting to be done.

  • Matt (Bristol) 19th Jul '16 - 12:39am

    I am aware the EU is not a military alliance per se, and we retain NATO status, but I am increasingly concerned, now we have voted to leave, that a state that regards multinational alliance and dialogue as little more than an inconvenience, and is prepared to precipitately U-turn away from its previous international partners, is a state that ultimately should not hold nuclear weapons and particularly not delivery systems designed to give said state a global deployment capacity.

  • Peter Davies 19th Jul '16 - 7:03am

    Our most implacable enemies are not deterred by any threat to civilian targets. They either don’t have countries or consider their populations expendable. The key to combating suicide bombers it not to train our own suicide bombers but good intelligence and early interception. The same is true of missiles and bombs.

  • Trident is a dead man/woman’s weapon…..It will only be used AFTER the UK has been destroyed in a nuclear strike….

    There are three scenarios for nuclear weapons being used…

    1. Global nuclear war involving the ‘big boys’ e.g. Russia, China, USA

    2. Single state use e.g. N.. Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan

    Terrorist use…. e.g. ISIS

    In yesterday’s debate May said that the UK has 1% of the world’s nuclear weapons….

    In scenario 1. What difference/deterrent will our 1% have?

    In scenario 2. How/why would we alone have been attacked?

    In scenario 3. What use a deterrent?

    The Trident vote had nothing at all to do with our defence and all to do with showing a united Tory party and a disorganised opposition….

    At least we now know where this £350 million a week is going; to pay the estimate lifetime Trident costs of £200 billion…

    So much for the NHS, Housing, etc. as priorities…

  • Rightsaidfredfan 19th Jul '16 - 7:44am

    I believe the lib dems support having nukes? I know they’ve tried to fudge it to pretend that they are different and all that, but I think the question should we have nukes is one of those black and white yes or no kind of issues.

    A lib dem government would not disarm, and you know it.

  • Donald Smith 19th Jul '16 - 8:01am

    Paul Kennedy – all our MPs seem to have voted against, except for Greg Mulholland who either abstained or was absent. An impressive show of unity when compared to Labour!

  • There will be no nuclear weapons flying our way as long as we are members of NATO.

    This is the argument of the pacifist who wants to enjoy the moral high ground or saying they would not kill, while enjoying the freedom that can only be theirs because others are willing to kill one their behalf.

    It is an inconsistent and despicable stance. If you are really against the use of nuclear weapons, you must withdraw from NATO, for how can you say it would be wrong for us to keep and hold nuclear weapons, while still remaining safe only because you rely on another country to keep them and use the on our behalf if we are attacked?

    Moreover there are Historical examples of the two great nuclear powers (America and Russia) very closely coming together to significantly reduce the amount of nuclear weapons that they stockpiled

    The UK has done this too. But unilateral reduction to zero is a very different thing.

    Would you really like to live in a world where every country has given up its nuclear weapons, to show respect for human rights, except Russia and China? Do you think such a world would be safer, or less safe, than this one?

  • Very sorry to see our MPs voting against. After the wounding experience of Coalition are we retreating from the real world to a holier-than-thou-huddle mentality. Looks like it to me!

  • Shaun Cunningham 19th Jul '16 - 8:47am

    Nuclear Weapons Violate Your-rights

    No they don’t…..

    Quote “Moreover, if we analyze the declaration of Human rights, specifically, Article 3, it is clearly stated that: ‘people have the right to life, liberty and security of person’ (Un.org. 2016). This clause is further backed up by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights which also states: ‘No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.’ (RightsInfo, 2016)

    Craig, I do feel you are pushing the boat out on this one. I have heard the European Convention of Human Rights used to justify many a thought but to used it to say “Nuclear Weapons violate my rights ” is way over the top.

    I fully support the government position on Nuclear weapons, in fact, overwhelmingly the Country does as well. Once again the party is out of step with public opinion.

    Just look at North Korea for god sake, they launching ballistic missiles every other day. Can anyone honestly say, North Korea is stable, Kim Jong-un is a little unbalanced, wacky, some may say a little dotty , to put it mildly

    Sorry I have Trident thank you every much. I am so glad there’s still seeds of the SDP still alive in our great party, to give it a little stability. What great about this party we can disagree without going to war, unlike some!

  • @ Donald Smith “An impressive show of unity when compared to Labour!”

    Seven out of eight for a hopelessly nervous policy which can’t possibly be masked as an impressive show of unity. To be frank, having watched the debate, it was like a street busker’s out of tune penny whistle against the SNP’s massed pipe band sweeping down the Royal Mile.. Sorry, it was disheartening.

  • David Allen 19th Jul '16 - 9:54am

    “Until a way can be found to ensure that those other, less stable or trustworthy countries give up all their nuclear weapons, we must keep ours”

    Why on earth should anyone think that Boris’s Brexit Britain is stable or trustworthy?

  • Why on earth should anyone think that Boris’s Brexit Britain is stable or trustworthy?

    Ah, the sheer self-loathing of the British intellectual is surely something to behold. Truly, as George Orwell observed, a Liberal Democrat would rather be caught stealing from a poor-box than sincerely singing God Save the Queen.

  • Shaun Cunningham 19th Jul ’16 – 8:47am……………..I fully support the government position on Nuclear weapons, in fact, overwhelmingly the Country does as well. Once again the party is out of step with public opinion…………….

    I believe that trying to be ‘in step with public opinion’ is why we only have 8 MPs….

    I have yet to read a scenario where a UK independent deterrent will have ANY effect on the actions of either our allies or potential enemies…Our role should be as a conventional ally (although even such actions have caused major problems)….The USA does not need our nuclear ‘gnat’s bite’ and our enemies regard it as little more than a joke…

  • matt (Bristol) 19th Jul '16 - 10:48am

    Tim, now you’re done sneering at other’s points, can you engage with my slightly more nuanced one, and explain why a nation that is exiting one of its critical multinational alliances has a right to continue to hold nuclear weapons whilst claiming to resist proliferation, and in particular where Trident – a global aggressive delivery system, not a local or regional defence-based system, fits into the post-Brexit universe?

    Not everyone who is against Trident is a unilateralist.

    I know this will not satisfy many people who like a black and white universe, and there are reasonable claims that our policy is not ideal, but it does allow for a coalition of commonality between multilateralists, unilateralists and those who want to retain a deterrent but at a reduced scale.

    I don’t see why we can’t have an intelligent national debate (which this symbolic parliamentary ritual is clearly not) about the strategic function of this expensive, inflexible and intensively maintained aspect of defence and foreign policy on a more informed basis than ‘there is no alternative – don’t question my authority or you’re giving support to our enemies’.

    That doesn’t make me a unilateralist necessarily, just someone who despairs of cant.

    Oh, yes I can see why we “can’t” have that debate – it’s the corrosive relationship between the Tory party and the tabloid press.

  • It’s strange how the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Fins, the Danes, the Belgians, the Spanish, the Swiss……. and looking at history, especially, ……. the Germans and the Japanese ….. all seem to manage without ‘an “Independent” Nuclear deterrent……. not to mention the Australians,New Zealanders and Canadians.

    Just think what you could do for social/health and the infrastructure with £ 179 billion.

    I suppose it depends on whether you still have delusions of Independent Imperial power and status or not……. a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Brexit mentality.

  • why a nation that is exiting one of its critical multinational alliances has a right to continue to hold nuclear weapons whilst claiming to resist proliferation

    Well, I’d trust a soverign Britain with nuclear weapons far more than a federal Europe.

    in particular where Trident – a global aggressive delivery system, not a local or regional defence-based system, fits into the post-Brexit universe?

    Where it fits is that we don’t know where across the globe threats to the UK might develop over the next fifty or sixty years (in 1956, could you have predicted the current geopolitical situation? So how can you predict the world of 2076 & be sure we won’t need a credible mega-destryctive second-strike capability to ensure Britain’s security?).

    We came very close to having to surrender to Germany in 1940; do you not think that knowing an invasion would result in Berlin being totally destroyed would have increased our security?

  • matt (Bristol) 19th Jul '16 - 11:33am

    In the context of Hitler? Absolutely not.

  • matt (Bristol) 19th Jul '16 - 11:41am

    Sorry, Tim, I addressed your last point first.

    So, your argument (and that of others) seems to come down to, ‘we have these things, so therefore we have to be free to use them to their fullest, most destructive capacity because of the risk of the unforeseen, but no-one else can have them, and if the court of global opinion perceives us as hypocrites for preaching diplomatic solutions to maintain non-proliferation whilst behaving in an unpredictable and arguably disturbing fashion on the world stage, tough, they’ll have to deal with it’.

    ‘Well, I’d trust a soverign Britain with nuclear weapons far more than a federal Europe.’

    Well, you might, but global strategy about nuclear weapons – including the MAD theory – isn’t about your perceptions, is it? It’s about what the leaders and parliaments of the muclear and nuclear-aspirant nations think and credibly believe we might do. Do you think Obama or Clinton or Modi or Netanyahu or Erdogan or whoever share your perception that the UK outside the EU with nukes is more stable, more predicatable, or less? And why should they think that?

  • Richard Underhill 19th Jul '16 - 12:26pm

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was deliberately set up as a “Declaration”, incorporation into law has been done in some jurisdictions.
    In the debate the question was posed “What would happen if Japan had had nuclear weapons and we had not?” The history is simply that there was a threat that the Axis powers were trying to develop nuclear weapons. The Norwegian government, exiled in London, gave clear and brief instructions for the destruction of facilities for H2O2. The operation was successfully conducted by some very brave Norwegians and the ambitions of the Axis were delayed sufficiently.
    Missile development was not delayed sufficiently. V1 and V2 missiles were fired at the UK from occupied territory on the continental mainland.
    The timing of the debate in the Commons follows the change of PM. Cameron’s secret instructions to nuclear submarines destroyed unread, replace by his successor.

  • Richard Underhill 19th Jul '16 - 12:32pm

    Most MPs seemed to be unaware of the detectable ripples on the surface of the sea, or the tracing of effluent by drones. Economist magazine 16-22/7/2016, PM on cover.

  • Tim,

    “Truly, as George Orwell observed, a Liberal Democrat would rather be caught stealing from a poor-box than sincerely singing God Save the Queen.”

    It’s nice to see someone wearing his “PROUD TO BE A LIAR” badge on his sleeve. Of course, Orwell died in 1950 while the Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988, so… That’s post-truth politics for you!

  • There is no circumstance where GB would independently launch, or even threaten to launch, a nuclear strike, only as part of a NATO response

    Currently. But you don’t know what the situation might be like in fifty or sixty years if, say, the USA elects an isolationist administration which declares it is no longer concerned with fulfilling its NATO obligations (and don’t look across the Atlantic, today of all days, and say that could never happen; it clearly could).

    So, your argument (and that of others) seems to come down to, ‘we have these things, so therefore we have to be free to use them to their fullest, most destructive capacity because of the risk of the unforeseen, but no-one else can have them,

    Exactly the reverse of my argument. My argument is that others have them, and there is no way to stop others having them, so we must have them too or we will be defenceless against those who do.

    and if the court of global opinion perceives us as hypocrites for preaching diplomatic solutions to maintain non-proliferation whilst behaving in an unpredictable and arguably disturbing fashion on the world stage, tough, they’ll have to deal with it’.

    This is like claiming the police are hypocrites for enforcing the laws against gun ownership, while maintaining armed respose units; it hardly deserves a response.

  • @Tim – “After all, imagine a world in which only Russia had nuclear weapons. I think it’s pretty obvious that in such a world, Putin would have by now have used a nuclear weapon. What stops him from doing so? Only the fact that other countries, mainly but not only the USA, also have them.”

    If we don’t replace Trident, the USA will continue to have nuclear weapons. Russia has been involved in a number of military actions against non-nuclear armed countries (Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine) without nuking them for a quick win.

  • Nom de Plume 19th Jul '16 - 3:38pm

    I have no problem with an independant nuclear deterrent. Trident does cost a lot. Where other options considered? The party’s policy of a symbolic nuclear deterrent does not make much sense. I guess the policy was designed with political considerations in mind. I would have preferred if they had all abstained.

  • Malcolm Todd 19th Jul '16 - 4:17pm

    Nick Baird 19th Jul ’16 – 12:51pm
    “Russia has been involved in a number of military actions against non-nuclear armed countries (Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine) without nuking them for a quick win.”

    I think the point is that no nation, in a world of multiple nuclear weapons, wants to be the first to use one for fear of inviting retaliation from other nuclear powers, even if the latter weren’t involved in the war in the first place. Of course, such retaliation wouldn’t be inevitable, but it would be a factor to consider.

    (Conversely, I think Tim’s assertion that it’s “obvious” that Putin would have used a nuclear weapon in this counterfactual world is quite unjustified — but his general point, that the existence of other significant nuclear arsenals inhibits each of the nuclear powers from using their own, is probably correct.)

  • @ Tim : “Truly, as George Orwell observed, a Liberal Democrat would rather be caught stealing from a poor-box than sincerely singing God Save the Queen.”

    And to add to David Allen’s comment, we had a King at the time…….. still, nice try, Tim.

  • John Mitchell 19th Jul '16 - 7:21pm

    I support Trident’s replacement as a multilateralist. Unless all nations choose to scrap their nuclear weapons systems, I believe that it is irresponsible for Britain to do so.

    France have their own independent nuclear deterrent. Trident isn’t that and is wholly reliant on the assistance of the United States. I do feel somewhat uncomfortable in having to rely on or ‘outsourcing’ part of our national defence capabilities to another country. However, it comes with the benefit of a much reduced cost. Which is why this route was adopted originally. I believe the UK would be better with its own deterrent, but that’s not remotely plausible in the current financial circumstances.

    The sad fact may be that weapons will continue to develop and eventually nuclear weapons will not be the most powerful weapon of destruction. At that point its attraction for some countries may finally wane.

    I’d lastly argue that Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is already being violated through drone assassinations. There is no trial and instead just sanctioned killings which as with a nuclear attack features innocent casualties. You could argue correctly that this is on a much smaller scale, but the point still stands.

    I want to see a nuclear weapon free world but I don’t believe it is rational to unilaterally disarm which I’m doubtful will necessarily compel other nations to do so. Surely that should be the main purpose of scrapping a nuclear capability in whether our abolition will deter others and not the financial cost.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarRoland 18th Feb - 12:15am
    No Rob Parker, the referendum didn't mandate anything, however, various influential fringe elements of the Conservative party, being worried about UKIP and wanting to appear...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 17th Feb - 9:22pm
    "middle-class Remainers of the north of England to be given more attention?" Why only middle class remainers? I live in the North too and, from...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 17th Feb - 9:06pm
    As always it comes down to wanting more money for the NHS and social services. We are always asked "But where is the money going...
  • User AvatarRob Parker 17th Feb - 8:56pm
    "May’s speech shows that staying in the EU is best for Britain’s security" Right, but the referendum result, which politically speaking May HAS to implement,...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 17th Feb - 8:40pm
    @JoeB, To be fair to Ricardo, he did float the idea of Ricardian equivalence, he later backed away from the idea. His entry in Wiki...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 17th Feb - 8:27pm
    Can I put in a plea for the middle-class Remainers of the north of England to be given more attention? It is reported that the...