In five weeks’ time, I will celebrate being 68 years old, or young, depending on your outlook, and probably your own age. Brexit and covid aside, I am the happiest, most contented I have ever been in my life, and probably the fittest and most active too, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Do I enjoy the pastimes expected of your average 67 year old? Probably not, but then who gets to decide what anyone of any age should be doing, wearing or saying?

Age has always been relative. My 90-year-old mother does not regard herself as old. She has an active brain; old people are those with more years on the clock, and less faculties, than she has. This has been the case, in her mind, for the last 40 years. But to me, she is elderly, as she’s the oldest member of our family, and older than me. Similarly, those under 30 would, I’m sure, regard me as old, but they’d probably say the same of those ten years younger than me too.

Plan to deny care to the elderly

So, when I read the report last week in The Telegraph, saying that the government had made plans for people in their seventies to have treatment withdrawn in favour of “end of life pathways” in certain circumstances, I was rather taken aback. How could my government – and let’s be clear, this was a government discussion, far more than an NHS one – consider treating me and my peers differently based solely on when I was born?

Although the response from Number 10 was that this proposal “never represented agreed government policy”, it rather begs the question – how close did it come to being policy?

The documents in question relate to government planning for a flu-like pandemic under Exercise Cygnus. According to Dr Moosa Qureshi, who obtained them, these plans were a surprise to medics who were kept in the dark. Dr Qureshi has long campaigned for ‘pandemic transparency’, having recently succeeded, after a lengthy legal battle, in securing the release of government documents.

Two documents relating to the Government's planning for a flu-like pandemic under Exercise Cygnus have finally been disclosed following a long-fought legal challenge by @DrMQureshi who is represented by Tessa Gregory and Carolin Otthttps://t.co/4re1jSgneT pic.twitter.com/FyGo90F5ik

— Leigh Day (@LeighDay_Law) July 31, 2021

A “scandal of monumental proportions”

The plans referred to in article, suggesting elderly care home residents should be refused hospital care, were created in 2017/2018. They were discussed as proposals for action – or rather lack of it – in the event of a pandemic.

How this played out in practice, with the horror stories from 2020 of elderly hospital patients being sent to care homes without covid testing and without treatment, is still fresh in our memories. Between March and June of 2020, a staggering 28,186 ‘excess deaths’ were recorded in care homes in England alone.

Amnesty International described government decisions, which put tens of thousands of older people’s lives at risk, as “shockingly irresponsible” and a “scandal of monumental proportions”. Amid government failures during the pandemic, older people in care homes had been “abandoned to die”, while 400,000 other care home residents – many extremely vulnerable – had been put at greater risk

Triple lock on pensions under threat

The elderly have always been an easy target, and perhaps a popular one, for any government wishing to save money. Even now, a row is brewing in government over the triple-lock on pensions.

The triple-lock guarantees the state pension will increase each year in line with:

a) the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index

b) increasing average wages, or

c) 2.5 percent – whichever is the highest.

Average earnings are expected to be the highest of the three options by some considerable margin, perhaps as high as 8 percent.

Maintaining the triple lock is a government manifesto promise, but Chancellor Sunak has hinted at its suspension, despite government ministers warning of potential damage to the party. Good to know they are thinking of themselves, rather than the pensioners that would suffer as a result of any cut.

Has the government even looked at the international pension figures lately? The UK is certainly not world beating on the pension front, with one of the lowest rates in Europe

It’s not called National Insurance for nothing

I get that the young have it tough, whether as a result of years of austerity, Brexit, covid or government policy in general. I get that they might believe that anyone of a certain age has had the best years of their life and that the young shouldn’t have to carry the financial burden.

But there are two sides to this. Pensioners are not all wealthy. Those – like myself – living solely on a state pension are living on low incomes, having worked hard for decades to pay for that income. Or at least, that’s what we were led to believe all our working lives.

I always regarded paying my taxes, and especially paying National Insurance contributions, as my paying my dues and funding my future protection. It’s not called National Insurance for nothing, and as with any ‘insurance’ policy, I expect it to come good when it’s needed.

Who gets to decide when my life is considered no longer worth protecting or, indeed, saving? Where do you draw the line? No more care once you’re over 70? 80? 90? What about the disabled, or the mentally ill? There would be uproar (or at least I hope there would be), should the UK government decide that certain people with certain long-term illnesses should have their care removed.

The withdrawal of anyone’s care, for whatever reason, should be entirely the choice of the individual, their families and the medical professionals directly responsible for their treatment. It should not be the responsibility of governments to decide who is too old or too sick to get the care they need or deserve.

Age should not define us

Treating the elderly differently, solely based on their age is the thin end of the wedge. What next? Deny treatment to the overweight, those with unhealthy lifestyles, the drinkers, the smokers?

I might be old enough to be your mum, or your gran, but my age doesn’t define me, or the life that I lead. Whether I choose to take part in activities that would be considered inappropriate for my age is nobody’s business but my own.

Age is so much more than a number. It’s about knowledge, experience, maturity, wisdom and caring less what others think. None of that may matter to the government, but they should think twice before upsetting a growing sector of the population that have largely supported them in the past.

This country has seen enough division over the last five years to last a lifetime. Let’s not add age to the list of topics that divide us.

Thursday last week, the UK government made the long-awaited travel rules announcement: from 4am on 2 August, European citizens who were fully vaccinated would no longer have to isolate for ten days if travelling to the UK from amber list countries, with certain requirements of course, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Ryan Burton.

This news was particularly celebrated by British nationals living in Europe who are desperate to see family. However, true to form and within a few hours, it was then announced that there would now be an amber+ list, and that Spain may be placed on that list. Several hours later, more news emerged that in fact France was to be placed on the amber+ list and not Spain.

Travel rules mixed messaging

Here we go again. As a resident in Spain myself, I have not seen two of my children for 18 months, the other for 11 months, and this is not uncommon. Plans have had to change multiple times and this utter confusion and mixed messaging is now becoming infuriating. I reached out to fellow Brits in Spain for their thoughts on the latest news and the difficulties they face. Feelings are certainly running high. People are hurt, disillusioned, and desperate to see loved ones.

Hilary Walker told me:

For some time now, EU countries have been recognising NHS vaccine documents and allowing double-vaccinated British tourists to come into Europe. When they arrive back in the UK, there is only a test on day two and no isolation required.

Different travel rules for British nationals in the EU

For British nationals living in the EU however, it has been a very different story. The British government have for some reason been unable to reciprocate these arrangements to EU citizens and therefore even if they’re fully vaccinated, they would be required to isolate if travelling to the UK. This has been a source of anger, anxiety, and deep concern to British nationals living in Europe.

CA (who wished to remain anonymous) said:

The impact of isolation

One of the pandemic’s main trials for humanity was isolation, particularly from family. Everyone felt the effects to some degree but for those who are separated from family because they happen to live in another country, it has been even more challenging. Many British living in Europe haven’t seen their families since the beginning of the pandemic. Feelings are running high in these communities and frustrations are growing.

HJ (also anonymous) told me:

Contrast in messaging between EU and UK

For many living in EU when we look over to Britain, it is not a pretty sight. Measures here in Europe, certainly in Spain, have been clear and concise throughout. Most of us feel that there has been a high level of social responsibility and seriousness from the government.

When we look at our home nation, we are dumbfounded by what is going on. While variants happen and no country should be entirely blamed, let’s face the facts. Europe’s third wave was caused in the main by the Kent (Alpha) variant. It was far more transmissible, originated there likely because measures were so lax, and it quickly spread to Europe.

Julie Ley Gibbs talked of the stress and confusion, and the feelings of missing family:

Rise of the Delta variant

Spain, France, and other countries are now seeing dramatic rises in the Delta variant. The Delta variant originated in India yes, but it is widely accepted that the reason 99 percent of infections in the UK are now the Delta variant is because Boris Johnson thought more of a trade deal with India than the health of his nation and did not place India on the red list when it should have been.

Rita Vost told me, “We haven’t seen our family since June 2019 and it’s killing me BUT I have just read that a huge percentage of people arriving from Spain are testing positive. How the hell can this be true when everyone has to have a PCR test before travel? I don’t believe this Government!”

While everyone has had to put up with covid restrictions and rearrange plans, it is clear from elements of the British media that the UK seems to expect to be treated differently to the rest of the Europe. Every time Europe even considers bringing in tougher restrictions on British travellers there is an immediate backlash, which ultimately seems to take on a form of ‘Brexit revenge’ when in fact Britain’s nickname ‘plague Island’ should give the reality away

Brexit games?

The Daily Express wrote on Friday 30 July : Europe “is poised to trigger a new travel war as revenge for Lord Frost’s Brexit hard balling”. Please, the only Brexit games being played are by the British government and their right-wing supporting media. Their childishness and exceptionalism seem to know no bounds. The UK government is far more likely to implement policy based on jingoism and sheer incompetence. When you have been used by your government as political pawns for years, the behaviour becomes easy to spot.

France being placed on the amber+ list has added to the mistrust. On GISAID – a database that collates genetically sequenced Covid-19 samples from around the world – 14.2 percent of Spanish submissions and 1.9 percent of French submission were the Beta variant. It again makes no sense.

Grazia B said:

Bitterness and disappointment

So, while British nationals living in Europe are delighted that eventually the UK government seems to have got its act together and reciprocated to EU citizens what it should have done weeks ago, the whole fiasco has left a lot of bitterness and disappointment.

There is very little trust that the government guidelines are thought through, follow data and science, and are not based on political gameplay rather than practicality. Of course, every country has to make health decisions based on what is best for its citizens. But this doesn’t seem to be what the UK government is doing.

To many from the outside looking in, we see Britain as the sick man of Europe who hasn’t been able to get a grip on the pandemic at any point. And for that we are all being made to pay the price.

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines about the ongoing UK issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol:

Over the last few days, rumours have been rife as to the UK’s plans to resolve issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol. Rhetoric from Lord Frost – the UK’s Brexit negotiator – has been ramping up over recent weeks.

Would the new proposal – the ‘command plan’ – be more constructive, or just more UK government sabre-rattling?

At the beginning of the month, Frost described the truce between the EU and the UK, in the so-called ‘sausage wars’, as merely a “sticking plaster”. As a direct response, relations with the EU were said to be deteriorating, following Frost’s “strange” remarks, with European Commission vice president, Maroš Šefčovič, warning that the EU may step up plans for legal action against the UK.

Accepting responsibility for Brexi

The government’s denial of responsibility for the consequences of Brexit is not new. Frost in particular has washed his hands of any blame for the failings of his own – once touted – Brexit deal. That blame is being laid firmly at the EU’s door, with claims of EU inflexibility and purism.

Not one to be left out of any EU Brexit bashing, Prime Minister Johnson joined in the blame game attacking the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol, and providing a committee of ministers with a list of the issues. Not quite the ‘oven ready’ deal that he persuaded parliament to support, it would seem.

By the second week of July, Frost was promising answers on the Northern Ireland protocol before summer recess, accusing the EU of dodging the “heart of the problem” in post-Brexit trade.

While Frost continued to insist the protocol was the cause of all problems, the EU disagreed. On a recent trip to Dublin, European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said the protocol was the “only solution” to the problems caused by Brexit.

Pump up the volume

Prior to Wednesday’s big announcement, the scene was being set with Frost talking of deviating from the Brexit deal and “pumping up the volume”. The expectation was that the UK would invoke Article 16 of the protocol, which allows either party to take unilateral action if the application of the protocol “leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”.

By Wednesday morning, more supposed details of the government’s command plan were beginning to emerge. In a conversation between Boris Johnson and Irish Taoiseach, Michael Martin on Tuesday evening, Johnson said the Northern Ireland protocol was “causing significant disruption”, according to a Downing Street spokesperson.

Johnson called on the EU to “address the serious issues that have arisen” with Brexit in Northern Ireland. Sources described the proposal as “meaningful” and “a significant piece of work”, saying the move to eliminate border checks represented a “wholesale change of approach”. It was also anticipated that alongside the plan would be a threat – to suspend the Northern Ireland protocol altogether.

Brandon Lewis and David Frost will unveil the government's new thinking on the Northern Ireland Protocol tomorrow afternoon

It's a "significant piece of work," a UK source says

EU is bracing itself for a bold statement. "It probably won't make us happy"https://t.co/z6Gp0eB3zn

— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) July 20, 2021

Brexit expert David Henig commented in a Twitter thread that any ‘new thinking’ or indeed just ‘thinking’ would be welcome from the UK government”, but added that expectations were “low”.

To be honest 'new thinking' or indeed just 'thinking' would be welcome from the UK government with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol, as compared to the usual shallow analysis, reheated leftovers and empty threats. Expectations low. https://t.co/BYEGI8Y07X

— David Henig (@DavidHenigUK) July 20, 2021

Henig added that the idea of the proposed “honesty box” approach at the border had not been considered by other nations, perhaps because it was a “completely ridiculous” idea. He went on to point out that any mention of Article 16 should come with the warning that any measures taken are both “limited and open to retaliatory measures”

Frost’s command plan

When the plan was finally announced on Wednesday afternoon, it brought no real surprises, other than the government stopping short of the triggering of Article 16. Apparently, “now is not the right moment to do so”. Frost said the proposals would require “significant change to the Northern Ireland protocol” – a step he said the UK would not “shy away” from. That significant change is, no doubt, expected to come only from the EU side of the debate. Frost added:

Many commentators and onlookers may disagree with that assessment, citing Frost and Johnson as the main barriers to a strong, mutually beneficial partnership between Britain and Europe.

It is clear that the battle between Europe and the UK is set to continue, with the EU having the upper hand and international law on its side

The UK plan will have come as no surprise to the EU, though will likely have caused considerable irritation. The EU, like us, is used to the UK government failing to recognise the realities of Brexit, or indeed of international trade. The government has yet again proved it doesn’t understand the workings, or perhaps even the aims, of the European Union.

I had expected the EU to give the UK government’s latest proposal due consideration, before they said no. As they were bound to. Because they have no choice. It’s a ridiculous plan with no hope of success. But they immediately poured cold water on the idea. Šefčovič said, “we will continue to engage with the UK, also on the suggestions made today. We are ready to continue to seek creative solutions, within the framework of the Protocol, in the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland. However, we will not agree to a renegotiation of the Protocol”.

The Brexit fantasy

When asked in the House of Lords on Monday to name the benefits of Brexit, Lord Frost replied:

He proved then, as he proved again today, that his Brexit is a fantasy. This isn’t a plan, command or otherwise. It’s sabre-rattling nonsense of the highest order. And the country deserves better.

Here’s Bremain Chair Sue Wilson´s latest article for Yorkshire Bylines:

When Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, announced that quarantine measures would soon be lifted for fully vaccinated Brits, the news was largely welcomed. Until Brits abroad looked at the small print. The new measures would only apply to British citizens in the UK, vaccinated by the NHS, and not to British citizens abroad.

Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, immediately raised this issue in parliament. Bradshaw pointed out that, even for countries on the government’s green list, travel this summer was more restricted than last summer, despite the vaccination programme. He said reciprocity with other countries was “absolutely vital” and the lack of immediate reciprocity meant other countries were “less likely to open up to us any time soon”. He asked Shapps, “why when so many European countries already accept our vaccine passport are we incapable of accepting theirs now?” While Shapps acknowledged that reciprocity is “very important”, he said negotiations were ongoing, and that the government would move “as quickly as possible”.

While today's travel announcement is welcome, it still leaves us more restricted than last summer, when we didn't have the vaccine & it lacks reciprocity, which other countries have already. My question to @grantshapps #speakupfortravel #SaveOurSummer pic.twitter.com/KL0ZMSv5zH

— Ben Bradshaw (@BenPBradshaw) July 8, 2021

Shapps later told LBC that he was expecting to strike a deal with EU countries “within weeks”, to allow the UK to recognise EU Covid vaccine certification – the EU Digital Pass.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tells LBC he expects to strike a deal with EU countries “within weeks” to recognise other nation's Covid jabs – meaning people who got double jabbed on the continent could travel to England without quarantining.@TomSwarbrick1 pic.twitter.com/mysZbzYq7T

— LBC (@LBC) July 9, 2021

With Spain currently on the government’s amber list, all travellers arriving in the UK are required to quarantine for 10 days. They also need to have a negative test result before leaving Spain & have two further tests on day 2 and day 8 of isolation. These measures, and the not inconsiderable costs attached, are preventing many from visiting family and friends in the UK. Many have not seen family members – parents, children, grandchildren – for over a year. When those family members are elderly or infirm, there is always the worry they may never see them again.

Bremain in Spain members were quick to voice their anger and frustration. Lorna Cage said, “I’m utterly bereft. I really can’t take much more of this. My mother is 92 and I haven’t seen my children for 18 months. We are inoculated with a drug licenced by the UK and we are British citizens. This is political game playing at our expense”.

Just had daughter on the phone in tears. I’m furious. She has a valid EU vaccination certificate. Apparently Wembley & Wimbledon can be packed with fans but British citizens who happen to live in an EU country can’t visit their family without quarantining. 🤬🤬🤬

— Roaring Meg #makevotesmatter (@Megthelibraria1) July 8, 2021

Ruth Woodhouse said, “as of 1 July, the EU has had a fully-functioning digital Covid certificate scheme in place. Therefore I see absolutely no reason why the process should not be extremely simple”. She described the measures as “discriminatory” and “heartbreaking”

The pain of quarantine for separated families

Helen Johnston expressed the difficulties for those who cannot quarantine with family members, saying, “Grant Shapps says he has sympathy for families kept apart by Covid, but the government has, it seems, given no thought to the circumstances of people who live abroad. Returning holidaymakers have a home to go to, but many of us have nowhere suitable to stay, and so are obliged to stay in hotels. With holiday accommodation in the UK scarce and priced at a premium this summer, the government’s refusal to reciprocate on recognising EU vaccine certificates is effectively making it impossible for us to see our families”.

Although some families will be reunited thanks to the lifting of quarantine restrictions, not all Brits abroad can rely on their families travelling to see them. Apart from some very real fears about any travel during the pandemic, not everyone is able physically or financially, to visit family in Europe.

Michael Soffe shared sentiments familiar to many, saying, “I am furious about this as all I want to do is visit my 92 year old parents without having to go into quarantine. I cannot be away from Spain for 10, 12, 14 days!”

Brits living in Spain ‘furious’ that new quarantine exemption doesn’t apply to those vaccinated outside UK

These are exactly the same vaccines administered by sophisticated healthcare systems

This is Brexit politics not public health policyhttps://t.co/B0WZuLRCWa

— Green💚Molly (@GreenPartyMolly) July 9, 2021

A lack of reciprocity in quarantine arrangements?

Vaccinations used across the EU are the same as those used in the UK. Not only that, they are produced using the same production methods, and often the same production facilities. The EU covid certification is recognised widely, not least by the 27 EU member states, and EU countries widely recognise the UK NHS system. There seem to be no legal or scientific reasons for the UK government decision, so we can only assume – as with all things EU related – that the decision is purely an ideological one. Certainly, as with so many things involving our government and covid, logic and common sense play little part in the decision-making process

Covid cases in the UK are at their highest level for many months. Meanwhile, the vaccination programme that the government have been so proud of, and have seemingly regarded as the cure to all covid ills, has slowed down considerably. The speed with which the EU has rolled out their own vaccination programme – both doses – is starting to look more efficient by comparison, despite a speedy UK start.

Vaccination levels in the UK are now at a considerably lower level than earlier in the year, with the number of first doses on 7 July at 86,953, compared to 752,308 at their peak on 20 March (source: government website). It would therefore seem that decisions about the effectiveness of covid measures by other countries are not being made based on scientific data, but on politics.

Thanks to @BenPBradshaw for raising this issue with the "transport" secretary.
Brits in EU want to travel to see family in UK too! Some haven't seen family for over a year, & elderly parents in UK can't make the journey.
Yet again excluded by our own government.@BremainInSpain pic.twitter.com/Vw031a41gV

— Sue Wilson (@Suewilson91) July 8, 2021

As Bradshaw pointed out, most of Europe should have been on the green list weeks ago, and if Europe can recognise our vaccine passports, why can’t the UK government recognise theirs?

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines about her personal experience during the pandemic:

It’s been nine months since I last saw my mum. Having been used to monthly visits, covid measures have prevented me – like so many others – from spending precious time with family.

Taking precautions with covid

I live in Spain, my mum lives in a care home in Oxfordshire. My last visit was a week after her 90th birthday, which I missed, thanks to being stuck in quarantine.

As I write this, I am doing a further period of enforced isolation, though this time for 10 days, not 14. I say 10 days, but as the count doesn’t start till the day after arrival, it’s really 11. Leaving me three days out of my two week trip to visit mum, by appointment only, and time limited.I don’t mind the precautions the care home is taking, even the daily testing. In fact, I welcome them. I rather wish the whole country, not least the government, were half as cautious over covid.

Covid travel measures

I thought long and hard before making the decision to visit the UK, weighing up convenience, cost, and safety.

It was anticipated that on “Freedom day” in June, many covid restrictions would be lifted. Instead, any revisions were postponed for four more weeks. With Spain on the government’s amber list, and no immediate signs of that changing, travelling to England was going to mean isolation. But the alternative could mean waiting until after the new Freedom Day – expected on 19 July.

With quarantine measures expected to be dropped from amber list countries, this could mean a considerable increase in demand for flights – both into and out of the UK – and no doubt a hike in prices. With more people, comes more risk, even for those of us fully vaccinated, and on balance, I chose to come earlier and quarantine.

Although my decision has cut the time I will be able to spend visiting mum, you can’t put a price on feeling safe. Though there seem to be plenty of companies willing to take our money. My pre-flight test in Spain was quick, painless, and relatively cheap. For 40 euros, I was tested by a laboratory assistant in a white coat, and had my results fully documented in an email within two hours.

I have just posted the first of two UK tests – self-administered – during quarantine. The two tests combined cost me £175, and all that is guaranteed is that I will have the results within 48 hours of the provider receiving them in the post.

I was officially allowed to break quarantine in order to go to the nearest priority post box to return my test. The logic of that escapes me, but then the logic of many of the government’s covid measures have that same effect.

Mask wearing

With social distancing about to be scrapped, and the wearing of masks left up to the individual, you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s perfectly safe to return to normal life. But will the British public continue to wear masks when the matter is left to their own discretion?

Wearing masks has always been about protecting others, not ourselves. Behavioural Scientist, Professor Stephen Reicher told the BBC, “I agree that people have to exercise responsibility – but not just personal responsibility, social responsibility”.

Speaking of circumstances when personal freedom affects the freedom of others, he compared mask wearing to driving. He added, “my freedom to drive fast affects your safety”, adding that the freedom not to wear a mask similarly affects the safety of others.

Speaking for transport industry union Unite, Bobby Morton said any lifting of requirements for the wearing of face coverings on public transport would be “an act of gross negligence”.

Covid is not like the flu

The new Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, seems keen to put freedom and wealth before health. He does know he’s not Chancellor anymore, doesn’t he? By all accounts, we all now have to “learn to live” with covid – like we live with the flu.

But covid is not the flu, and nobody, to my knowledge, has been seriously ill for months on end, or suffered long-term damaging effects, from “long flu”. I also don’t remember the entire population being recommended to be vaccinated against the flu or having to self-isolate.

👇🏼 New UK health minister saying COVID is like flu. Same position 18 months into the pandemic. 😩 We didn’t have to vaccinate the entire adult population against flu, or do mass community testing, or have lockdowns bc hospitals full. I don’t understand this analogy. https://t.co/2w15dwpuYE

— Prof. Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) July 4, 2021

The fact that covid is spreading amongst the younger, unvaccinated population, or that case numbers are the highest they have been for many months, is nothing for us to be concerned about apparently, at least according to Javid or the prime minister.

Despite rising hospitalisations, they point to the low number of daily deaths, comparatively speaking, as if that is the only measure worth consideration.

"I don't think we can do anything but conclude that this government is seriously carrying out its herd immunity policy through natural infection, through school children."@Zubhaque #IndependentSAGE pic.twitter.com/lsTNCQ2hXU

— Independent SAGE (@IndependentSage) July 2, 2021

It may be the case that the vaccination programme is having an impact on the relationship between case numbers and deaths. We certainly hope so. But isn’t it too soon to know for sure? Have the government given up any pretence and decided to carry out its earlier, and supposedly soundly rejected herd immunity policy.

Learning to live with covid

Though not quite what the government had in mind, I am learning to live with covid measures. Measures that will restrict my movement, my proximity to others and my freedoms. I shall continue to wear a mask, not for my own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

There is nothing very promising about the covid data.

We're about three quarters of the way through the vaccine programme and they're giving up – let the rest just get it.

Dangerous and wrong in my view. https://t.co/XxzzeAsUsv

— Prof. Christina Pagel (@chrischirp) July 4, 2021

We are going to have to learn to live with covid, say the government – even as it mutates and becomes more dangerous. Not easy, but perhaps not as tough as learning to live with this government – even as it mutates and becomes more dangerous.

Bremain Vice Chair, Lisa Burton, recently wrote this piece about the alleged Black Lives Matter links to Marxism for Yorkshire Bylines:

We hear it from politicians, celebrities, political commentators, and those who have launched a so-called ‘war on wokeness’ – ‘Black Lives Matter is Marxist’. It has played out most recently through the discussion of football teams deciding to ‘take the knee’ to show solidarity with the movement and stand against racism in the European Championships.

It is not the first time a social movement or individuals who have fought for equality and equal rights has been labelled as Communist or Marxist. But why? What does this mean, why is it perceived as such a threat, and is it true?

What is Marxism?

Very simply, Marxism is a theory that states the world is split into two classes of people: capitalists and workers. Capitalists exploit workers, and the conflict between these two classes deeply drives the history of humans. Social change (or, in its absence, social stagnation) results from the conflict between these classes.

Marxism envisioned the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat (working-class people), and the preparation of the state eventually for a classless communist society.

However, Marxism is theoretical and in modern times, usually means analysing social change through an economic lens, with the assumption that the rich and the poor should become equal.

Historically, communism has often been feared or seen as a threat to western society.

In the 1940s and 1950s, American Senator Joseph McCarthy made public accusations of “card-carrying communists” within the US government. His charges were proven untrue, but his campaigning ushered in one of the most repressive times in 20th-century American politics.

Just three weeks before Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination, an FBI report (not released for 50 years) tried to discredit him while also labelling him a secret supporter of communism, “a whole-hearted Marxist”.

No evidence exists that verifies any of the claims in the report, yet it shows how even then, Marxism was being tied to the fight for racial equality.

What is the Black Lives Matter movement?

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international social movement against racism made up of a broad array of people and organisations. The organisation that initially took the name Black Lives Matter (which is not trademarked and therefore can be used by anyone) was founded in 2013 by three women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi.

All were community organisers  who set up the group in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. On 26 February 2012, the neighbourhood watch volunteer fatally shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. In 2015, one of these founders stated that she and another founder were “trained Marxists”.

In response to the deaths of many black Americans at the hands of the police, BLM activists became involved in numerous protests in 2014 and 2015, and by 2016 the originators expanded their project into over 30 local chapters.

Then, in 2020, George Floyd’s murder was broadcast around the world. An estimated 15–26 million people protested in America alone; soon, the protests spread across the globe, encompassing people from every nationality and every walk of life who had decided enough was enough.

Within the BLM movement, an ‘official group’ managed to get the verified tick on Twitter. Still, there is no natural hierarchy or structure to the campaign, contributing to confusion in the press and public.

It would be nonsensical to say that 15–26 million people in America are Marxist or that those who marched across the world’s streets are communists. Black Lives Matter is not a single organisation but a fluid movement; it doesn’t matter if one of its founders was a liberal, Marxist, socialist or capitalist.

There is also an assumption that the BLM movement is violent. We all saw pictures broadcast from America of rioting and property damage. However, the facts don’t justify that. As this Harvard study shows, 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police

Another common criticism you see on social media is that BLM wants to destroy the nuclear family (defined as a family unit that includes two married parents of opposite genders and their biological or adopted children living in the same residence). This statement seemed to focus on much of the Marxist label, and it does come from one of BLM’s stated goals which is:

This statement is very much along the lines of ‘it takes a village to raise a child’. They want to dispel the notion that the traditional family structure is the only way to ensure neighbourhood stability and vitality.

Some may not think it an ideal policy but considering the modern makeup of so many families is now one of diversity, it is a bit of a leap to consider BLM has the power to destroy the family structure.

The truth is, the statement is perceived as a threat to the patriarchy.

In a rapidly changing world, some white people, and white men in particular, feel their societal standing is being diminished by those traditionally deemed to be of a lower class in society, such as women and people of colour

Taking the knee

Similarly, taking the knee has been equated by BLM critics to supporting Marxism. They often label it as a ‘political act’ or state that taking the knee is associated with George Floyd.

It was somehow honouring him as a ‘career criminal’.

The gesture, however, has a long history. Dr Martin Luther King Jr took the knee in 1965 while leading a prayer outside the Dallas County Alabama Courthouse, along with several other civil rights marchers after the group, of about 250, were arrested for parading without a permit.

Only a few years later, in 1968, the now-iconic photo was captured of African American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos with raised gloved fists when they received their gold and bronze medals at that year’s Olympics Games.

They were booed by the crowd, expelled from the Olympic village, blocked from competing in future US squads, and even found employment outside the sports complex. Their actions, however, cemented the gesture as a way for athletes to use their sport as a platform to draw attention to racial inequality.

The most significant influencer in the gesture of taking the knee, by far, was NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, he and his teammates took the knee before a game to draw attention to the undeniable police brutality inflicted on black Americans.

Kaepernick was advised by a white ex-serviceman, Nate Boyer, that kneeling was a more respectful gesture than simply remaining in the changing room during the national anthem.

Reactions were highly polarised, and after that season, Colin Kaepernick, despite being a top player, never played in the NFL again.

So is the BLM movement Marxist?

Multiple studies have shown there is no evidence to suggest that the BLM movement is Marxist. It is hugely diverse, and its support for gender identity politics sets it apart from historical Marxism. The goals listed on its website do not appear to be overtly anti-capitalist. Black Lives Matter and taking the knee both started to protest the unfair treatment of black Americans but have now become a global symbol of fighting racism, nothing more.

The real question is, why do those in power try to deride and dilute the BLM message? Well, it’s not that complicated.

The top of the pyramid of power and privilege has been almost exclusively white and male for hundreds of years. They see a rapidly changing world where sectors of society, whether that be by women, people of colour, the LGBTQ+ community, pushing for a society where they are treated equal and have equal opportunities.

People who cannot let go of traditional thinking fear power going to those they have always perceived as lower down the societal ladder than them. Society is weighted against minorities and those on low incomes, and many think that promoting minority interests will diminish their own interests and threaten their standing in society.

There are no valid reasons for fearing or deriding the BLM movement just as there was no reason to fear the Martin Luther King movement.

It is about changing society by ensuring everyone enjoys the same rights and opportunities, regardless of race, gender, or sex, not removing rights from the rest of the community and as a non-black person, Black Lives Matter allows us to open ourselves up to listen, and accept the experiences of others, even if we haven’t experienced them ourselves.