Falling out of love with the Brexit ‘deal’

After months of bombastic and often aggressive rhetoric, Lord Frost’s latest speech, to the British Irish Association last weekend, can have come as no surprise – not least to the EU. He spoke of the “vexed question of the Protocol”, suggesting it was “as controversial as ever”. Although the UK “did not get everything wrong”, he said that, “despite our best efforts, the issue is not settled”

This being the case, we would hate to see what Frost’s worst efforts might look like. Frost denied that his “EU-bashing” was an attempt to rally domestic support. In fact, to behave in such a way would be “grotesquely irresponsible”, he said. Long story short, Frost continues to insist that in order for the protocol to work, “we need to see substantial and significant change” – he means from the EU, of course.

By Monday morning, the media were full of anticipation that the so-called “sausage wars” truce was about to be extended. The expected end to two grace periods – due to expire on 30 September and 31 December – has been of great concern to business and industry, as the harsh realities of Brexit become ever clearer.

Extensions and delays

Additional checks and restrictions have already been delayed once when the UK requested an extension for exporting chilled meats back in June. The EU responded with a package of measures aimed at addressing some of the most pressing issues – it agreed to delay a ban on chilled British meat exports into Northern Ireland until 1 October. European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, stressed at the time that the EU was “not issuing a blank cheque” and that the UK would have to “fulfil clear obligations” during the coming three months. Still waiting.

As the UK confirmed its unilateral decision to extend the grace periods – this time “indefinitely” – the EU responded with a statement. They stressed that the protocol was “an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement”, an agreed solution between the UK and the EU. They reiterated the fact that “both sides are legally bound to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement”.

The Commission added that while it reserved its rights “in respect of infringement proceedings”, they were not moving forward with infringement procedures launched back in March, or taking any further legal action “for now”.

Brexit still isn’t ‘done’

Lord Frost suggested that the grace period extension would give the UK and EU more time to come to an agreement, as well as providing stability for business. Presumably, Frost’s interpretation of “coming to an agreement” involves having cake and eating it, and a lot of flexibility on the EU’s part.

From the other side of the Channel, the EU must be wondering how many times it must repeat “we will not agree to a renegotiation” before the penny drops, or the UK government finally understand how the EU works.

How much easier the whole process of Brexit could have been – and perhaps more friendly and collaborative – had the UK just accepted an extension to the transition period when the EU offered. But then that wouldn’t have got Brexit ‘done’.

Many voters must have had their faith in this government put to the test over recent months. They voted for Brexit based on promises of change, of a better future, of hope. Instead, they now see those that lauded Brexit complaining the loudest about the deal they themselves negotiated.

According to data from Investing Reviews, the UK state pension is a mere 28.5% of pre-retirement earnings – less than half the global average of 58.8%. The low base would be cause for concern on its own, but the threat from the Treasury to remove the “triple lock” protection is adding to existing fears.

What is the triple lock?

The triple lock was a policy commitment announced by the coalition government in 2010 as part of a package of reforms around pensions, which also included a rise in the state retirement age. The triple lock policy recognised that the value of the basic state pension had been falling for many years and sought to protect relative values in one of three ways. Pensions are now uplifted annually in line with price rises, average earnings or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. Hence the “triple lock”.

In recent years, prices and wages have risen slowly, if at all. However, a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility claims a rise of 8% in pension incomes can be expected this year, due to “unusual pandemic-related fluctuations in earnings growth”.

The Treasury view

In June, Treasury select committee Chairman, Mel Stride, suggested that the triple lock should be reduced to a double lock on pensions. He claimed this would relieve any additional pressure on public funds and prevent “unintended consequences”. His suggestion was “to temporarily suspend the wages element of the lock”. He acknowledged that this “might not entirely conform to the Conservative party manifesto” but suggested that most people would “recognise that a potential double-digit percentage increase is unrealistic.”

In July, Chancellor Rishi Sunak was doing the rounds in the media. Despite frequent requests for confirmation, he declined to guarantee that the triple lock would be honoured this year. He told the BBC that the triple lock is the government’s policy, but that he recognised people’s concerns. He said he wanted to make sure that government decisions and systems “are fair, both for pensioners and for taxpayers”.

Although the suggestion is that any suspension of the triple lock would be temporary, the questions that hang over us are, can we trust the government, and how long is temporary? As Age UK’s Policy Manager, Sally West commented:

False economy

For anyone who has been watching this government closely, a threat to abandon a manifesto commitment, however temporarily, will not come as a shock. The penny-pinching antics, when dealing with the low-paid, the under-privileged, or indeed pensioners, is galling. The approach is completely at odds with the billions that have been squandered on ineffective Covid measures, or expensive external consultants.

Of course, any government should be mindful of spending, but to suggest that the “savings” to the public purse, from abandoning the triple lock, are justifiable, is a nonsense. The average pension payment is less than £9,000 a year, with many pensioners receiving less. According to Age UK, over 2 million pensioners in the UK live in poverty, with nearly a quarter having to rely on means-tested benefits to top up their income.

A common argument against triple lock is that it is unfair for younger generations to finance pensions for the elderly. However those receiving state pensions have been paying for that “insurance” all their working lives. Had they not contributed for a minimum of 37 years, they would not be receiving a state pension in the first place.

It is also important to remember that any changes that affect pension incomes are unfair to younger generations too and could hit younger people the hardest. The independent Pensions Policy Institute (PPI) has demonstrated that younger, low-income workers will find it harder to achieve an adequate income in retirement without the protection of the triple lock.

Pensioner betrayal

In August, the government finally confirmed that the triple lock policy is under review. A Treasury spokesperson said, “The Government will confirm next year’s state pension rates in the Autumn”. Former shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell described the threat to the triple lock as a “betrayal of pensioners”, as the Labour left put pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to oppose any “suspension”.

Support for a Treasury triple lock revision is not universal even within the government – not least due to the very real threat from pensioners with an axe to grind. Silver Voices – a campaign group for the over 60s – recently conducted a ballot amongst their members. As a result, they concluded that “the vast majority want us to campaign against the Conservatives at the next election if this manifesto promise is broken.”

Eyes wide open

Whatever the supposed justification, the Conservatives should be very wary about upsetting us silver surfers. Many of us have looked on in horror as taxpayers’ money has been handed out, in the billions, to friends and donors. We have watched the government attempt to lay the blame for all their misdeeds unfairly at the door of Covid. We have witnessed the public being misled, promises being broken, and a government that is unwilling to accept responsibility for its actions.

But pensioners are wide awake now. Our eyes are wide open, and there are millions of us – according to PPI, over 12 million, to be precise. Add to that the disenfranchised pensioners abroad, hoping to regain their voting rights before the next election, and that’s a lot of disgruntled, anti-government voters.

On 26 July 2021, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) launched an inquiry into the elections bill, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines. It is the latest of 13 ongoing inquiries that the House of Commons committee is currently undertaking. The topics being covered by these inquiries include ‘The work of the Cabinet office’, ‘The role and status of the Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Covid 19 vaccine certification’ and ‘The work of the Electoral Commission’.

Scope of the elections bill parliamentary inquiry

The committee aims to look at a number of elements of the controversial bill. These will include:

• provisions on voter ID
• the Electoral Commission
• membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission
• undue influence and electoral intimidation
• the regulation of expenditure for political purposes
• information to be included in digital election material
• overseas voting
• voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens
• changes to postal and proxy voting

Although the government claims the measures proposed in the bill are “necessary to protect the integrity of elections”, the committee recognises there has been criticism from a wide range of organisations, not least, the Electoral Commission itself. Witnesses at the ongoing PACAC inquiry – ‘The Work of the Electoral Commission’ – have already complained of “a complete lack of consultation” on the new proposals.

Committee chair, William Wragg, who was elected to the role in January 2020, spoke of the need to scrutinise the proposals carefully and test the government’s claims. He said:

The elections bill is not all bad, though most of it is

Understandably, much of the criticism aimed at the elections bill relates to the plans for mandatory voter ID at polling booths. This requirement, which the government ‘justifies’ as an aid to (non-existent) fraud prevention, is likely to disenfranchise already marginalised groups.

But one aspect of the bill will have the opposite effect and will enfranchise a group of voters who have long been arbitrarily denied their voting rights – UK nationals who have been living abroad for more than 15 years (of whom I am one). It is therefore a bitter pill for this group to swallow, as our enfranchisement comes at the expense of others equally deserving of a say at the ballot box.

I will not dwell on the many and varied reasons this bill is an abomination. Hopefully, there will be plenty of voices arguing their own case for electoral democracy for others. But I hope that the return of voting rights for Brits abroad – an unfulfilled promise of many a Conservative Party manifesto – is a government promise we can all hold them to.

The call for evidence

The committee is inviting individuals and organisations to submit evidence before 6pm on Tuesday 31 August. Any evidence submitted must be “directly related to the provisions of the Bill or tangential matters on which the Bill is silent”. Currently, the committee is not actively seeking evidence on wider electoral matters.

The committee has provided full instructions on presenting evidence – how to upload it, size, content and what happens to your evidence once submitted. Usually, any evidence received is published online and may be quoted in any future reports. Submissions should not have been published in advance, including in articles, on websites or in blogs.

As chair of the campaign group Bremain in Spain, I will shortly be submitting evidence of our own regarding overseas voting. In our report, we highlight our issues and concerns and make recommendations suggesting ways in which the government could go even further to restore our voting rights, and to restore trust. In addition, we will be supplying many testimonials from our members explaining ‘why my vote is important to me’.

Of course, we will be delighted when the 15-year rule is scrapped and we are all finally able to participate fully in British democracy, but the restoration of our voting rights alone is not enough.

It is important to look at how overseas constituents are represented in parliament. Understandably perhaps, an overseas voter who has not lived in a constituency for a number of years might not be top of their MP’s priority list. MPs may have little or no understanding of the issues that Britons abroad face, especially with all the post-Brexit complications. Dedicated MPs for overseas voters, as they have in France, would be a welcome development.

In addition, we must ensure that the postal voting system, which has so badly let us down in the past, is overhauled and made reliable. To have gone to the trouble of having registered to vote and completed a ballot, only to then have that ballot fail to be counted, is almost worse than not having a vote at all.

It’s all about the timing

The Electoral Commission has recommended longer lead times for postal voting – or better still, the ability to vote online or in the country of residence. Some countries, like Spain and Italy, allow their overseas voters to cast their ballots at their local embassy or consulate – a move that would be most welcome by British citizens abroad. Meanwhile, the online voting system in Estonia is setting records in participation, with over 31 percent of voters completing their ballots online in the 2017 general election.

The biggest concern regarding timing, though, is with regard to the general election itself. The government has stated that these rights will be restored in time for the next ‘scheduled’ election in 2024. However, there has been speculation of an early election in 2023, even from Labour leader Keir Starmer. It is therefore vital that contingency plans are in place to ensure that having got this far, Brits abroad are not denied the right to vote in yet another general election solely because the government moved the goalposts.

The elections bill returns to parliament on 7 September for the second reading in the House of Commons. Due to its controversial nature, it is likely to generate much debate – in parliament and, hopefully, in the media.

Our democracy is under threat from a government that avoids scrutiny like the plague. It is therefore vital that we take every opportunity afforded us to present evidence to ministers and encourage close examination of government plans and actions. If you think the elections bill is a travesty then tell the committee, but please don’t throw the overseas voting baby out with the bathwater.

In June 2005 we moved to the Southern Costa Blanca of Spain, a region the World Health Organisation declared as one of the most healthy climates in the world, writes Bremain Council member Mike Phillips for Kent Bylines. My wife Anne, as a pensioner, was able to register with the Spanish Health Service. She obtained her national identity SIP health card that confirmed her right to health benefits in Spain.

Although I had four years until my pension, I applied for an E106 health application from the UK Pension Service. I was then able to “jump on my wife’s back” to apply for my SIP card. There was a reciprocal agreement with Spain that the UK would refund Spain annually according to the number of UK residents in Spain registered for health care. UK pensioners who are resident in Spain benefit from this agreement.

Our local access to Spanish Healthcare

In 2002 the Spanish National Healthcare System had been decentralised to the 17 regional Comunidades of Spain,. This gave them autonomy to develop the healthcare information technology infrastructure needed to improve its access to the population, whether living in urban or rural areas.

We had a small clinic with one doctor in our village plus a private doctor, a private dentist and two pharmacies. In our local, administrative town there is a larger Centro Salud (Clinic) with emergency services and a wider choice of doctors and dentists. In Torrevieja, 30 minutes’ drive away, there is an established private hospital and a newly constructed Universitario Hospital that opened in October 2006.
Because of her partial mastectomy my wife suffered from lymphedema of the left arm. We sought advice from our local doctor that we were doing all we could to manage the problem. He made an appointment for us with an Oncologist at the new hospital. This is when we started to discover that, when the Spanish National Health Service has recognised a problem, it follows it through to a final cure

Our early, personal experience

The first step was a 3D scan of Anne’s left arm to create a personally fitted lymphedema sleeve. Also, a course of lymphatic drainage, plus further tests to determine whether any metastasis of the cancer had occurred. It had. They found numerous small nodules in her neck. This led to a series of regular scans and a change of hormone therapy. If the new hospital didn’t have the appropriate CAT or MRI scanners at this stage, they referred her to a specialist hospital in the city of Elche.

Test results were available rapidly to the Oncologist and personal doctor via internet technology. We were also able to log on to our own health portal website to request and check appointments. We could post questions to our doctor and read our medical reports. Prescription charges vary slightly from region to region but in Comunidad Valenciana have been free. Except for one brief period when you could claim back the 10% charge.

Private Health Care

Anne also developed bursitis, tendonitis and frozen shoulder in her right shoulder at this time. I couldn’t bear the agony and constant pain she had, so we visited Pastora, our private doctor who treated the whole person and not just the ailment. Within days she arranged an operation in a private hospital in Murcia, outside our administrative health region.

Within 24 hours the pain was gone. I could even have stayed with her in her room overnight. As I hadn’t been wise enough to take out private medical insurance when moving to Spain it cost me €4,000: a small price to pay to see the smile back on Anne’s face.

Further National Health experience in Spain

Now it was my time. In 2018 a routine blood test gave a high prostate level. A series of scans and a biopsy followed that confirmed cancer, but only in the prostate gland. They referred me to the private hospital for a series of 40 radiation treatments, mainly in the early hours of the morning. They had the latest technology that allowed the beam and dose to be accurately focussed and controlled. It was used fully and they did not charge me for it as the National Health hospital had referred me.

After five sessions a week for two months my prostate level had dropped from 39 to 0.02. They then gave me six monthly injections and a daily pill for 18 months to prevent the cancer returning. I wrote to my Oncologist thanking him and all his staff for their dedication. Foremost for the high-quality standards and pursuit of world beating medical technology that Hospital Quiron demands.

My wife’s emergency

In late September 2019 she developed severe stomach pains and could hardly speak. I dialled 112 for an ambulance and she was kept in hospital overnight for observation. The following morning she had an emergency operation for peritonitis (a one inch split in her stomach) and was put into a coma.

I contacted our twin daughters in Australia who booked the first flights possible and alerted the other children in England. The twins arrived just as Anne came out of the coma. When she was ready to be transferred to a normal ward it was to a private room. That meant that I and our girls also could moved in. It is part of Spanish culture that a family participates in aftercare and they make provision for it.

This cured the peritonitis but she was very weak and needed assistance with breathing via an intelligent ventilator she did not like. When we thought she was stable I sent the girls home to be with their young children for a long planned family holiday. But it was not to be. Less than two weeks later they were on another flight from Queensland to Spain.

Reflections on Spanish Healthcare and the NHS

It is sad to watch the UK NHS being undervalued and underfunded. The only apparent, future strategy seems to be to slowly sell off major elements to offshore businesses. By comparison, I only have praise for the Spanish Healthcare system.

If I have any criticism it is that, sometimes, there is a communication gap between doctors and nurses. This is mainly due to the legal responsibility of doctors for the care of their patients. Some nurses may be reluctant to take action without the sanction of a doctor. On the other hand, I’ve seen even student nurses visit a patient, not because it is time to do so but because he/she wanted to.

In March 2020 Spain had 3.9 doctors per 1,000 population, UK had 2.9. About a third of the 300,000 doctors in the UK come from other nations, of which just under a third are Indian and Filipino. Is this sustainable under the current immigration policy? The World Economic Forum and Bloomberg consider the Spanish Healthcare system the 7th best in the world. It is the most efficient in Europe and amongst the top worldwide with Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore.

If you’re thinking of moving to Spain, concern over healthcare should not prevent you. Just do your homework as in everything. Read for example an article written for local Spanish media by Sue Wilson MBE, Chair of Bremain in Spain prior to the last UK election.

Links for further information

Guidance from the UK government

An update from British Embassy, Madrid on health care post Brexit

Latest updates from British Embassy, Madrid on the Bremain in Spain website

Last weekend saw my home region of Spain – the Valencian Community – brace for the first real ola de calor of the 2021 season, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines. Warm air from the Sahara brought temperatures of over 40 degrees Celsius, with the threat of forest fires raised to ‘extreme’. The heatwave was also responsible for rising humidity levels on the coast, affecting atmospheric conditions and damaging air quality.

The threat of wild fires ravaging the countryside is a very real one, and not just in Spain. Recent fires around the world, such as in Greece, America and Australia, have highlighted the urgency of climate change action, and the dangers of inaction.

July saw extreme weather conditions across the globe, including unprecedented levels of flooding and landslides. On 11 August, Syracuse in Italy recorded the highest temperature ever experienced in Europe – 48.8 degrees C. This was beaten only by the highest temperature ever recorded on the planet – 54.4 degrees C (130 degrees F) – in Death Valley, USA in July (source National Centers for Environmental Information).

COP26 climate change conference just 10 weeks away

In ten weeks’ time – from 31 October to 12 November – the UK will host the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. A glossy brochure, entitled ‘COP26 explained’, starts with a quote from Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

The brochure describes climate change as “the greatest risk facing us all”. Many would agree. They may, however, disagree with the claim that “the UK has a lot to be proud of when it comes to acting on climate change”.

COP climate goals

The stated goals of COP are to:

• Secure global net zero and keep 1.5 degrees within reach
• Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats
• Mobilise finance
• Work together and deliver

COP president, Alok Sharma, says that the UK is “leading the way” on climate action. He told the Observer the world is “dangerously close” to running out of time adding, “we can’t afford to wait two years, five years, 10 years – this is the moment”.

However, Sharma has recently been criticised for travelling by plane to over 30 countries in the last seven months. The aim of the visits was to discuss climate change commitments with world dignitaries, but to do by plane when he is supposed to be leading on environment policy was labelled ‘hypocritical’ by many. And to do so in the midst of a pandemic, and then choose not to quarantine on his return, only added insult to injury.

Despite warning that the consequences of failure would be “catastrophic”, Sharma insisted that the UK would persevere with its plans to license new oil and gas fields.

Greta Thunberg not impressed

Following the publication of a recent “dire” report by a US science panel, environmental campaigner, Greta Thunberg announced her intention to attend COP26. She said she hoped the report would be “a wake-up call”. It would take massive pressure from both the public and the media, she said, for appropriate action to be taken.

Thunberg has long been critical of the inactions of governments around the world to tackle the growing climate crisis. Previous scientific warnings have seemingly been ignored, and actions have failed to live up to the hype.

In an interview with @Reuters, climate activist @GretaThunberg called for action to fight climate change after a dire report on global warming was released by the U.N. science panel https://t.co/jJipEZK8xd pic.twitter.com/lI6oRSbcA2

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 9, 2021

The environment bandwagon

I don’t doubt that many government ministers around the globe are genuinely concerned about the climate crisis we face. But, I suspect there are many more that have jumped on the environment bandwagon simply because they can no longer avoid it, or think it’s a vote-winner with the young.

As for our own government, it seems a regular occurrence for them to be hot on the rhetoric, but cold on the follow through. Whether on Brexit, covid, or climate change, our political representatives are all mouth and no trousers.

We are increasingly used to seeing them follow a different set of rules to the rest of us, and to putting their own interests ahead of the needs of the country, or the planet. How can we have any confidence that they will take the necessary tough steps to reverse, or even slow down, the damage that we are inflicting on the world?

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.