Having formally left the EU, the UK’s response to COVID-19 has revealed its eagerness to go it alone, which has had dire consequences, writes Jonathan Hopkin (LSE). He argues that Brexit thinking stymied the government’s response to the virus, at a great human cost.
On the 31st of January, Britain formally left the European Union. Although it remains subject to EU law for the rest of 2020 at least, its response to the Coronavirus pandemic has already revealed an eagerness to go it alone, rejecting participation in an EU initiative for the procurement of medical equipment and imposing lockdown far later than comparable countries. This divergence has had stark consequences: by the end of May, Britain had more deaths from COVID-19 than any country in Europe, and the second-highest per capita death rate in the world. This, despite the virus taking hold in Britain significantly later than in Italy or Spain, the first countries to suffer a sustained outbreak. What has this got to do with Brexit? Actually, quite a lot. Brexit thinking, and indeed the immediate material consequences of that decision, stymied the government’s response to the virus, at a great human cost.
The UK government’s initial approach to the crisis was both lethargic and confusing. With Italy already moving into lockdown, government scientists went on the air to talk about allowing ‘herd immunity’ (allowing most people to catch the virus) to solve the problem, whilst Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself boasted about shaking hands with Coronavirus patients in hospital. This was typical of the iconoclastic, anti-system leadership style Johnson has brought to British politics, imitating Trump and others. Only when the full scale of the outbreak in Italy became evident did the government begin to advocate voluntary social distancing, which was a complete failure, as mass events continued and workers crammed into packed buses and trains. Finally, the government bowed to the inevitable and followed the rest of Europe into lockdown, but according to later estimates 1.5 million Britons had already been infected with COVID-19 at that point.
What has this got to do with Brexit? Perhaps surprisingly, the problem did not seem to revolve around the scepticism towards ‘experts’ that leading Brexiters such as Michael Gove had expressed during the EU referendum campaign. Instead, the Johnson government took advice from a select group of scientists and modellers who advised that acting too quickly would be counter-productive. Instead, the government could ‘smooth the curve’ of infection with sophisticated measures of social engineering inspired by the ‘nudge’ movement in behavioural science, which in the first instance meant little more than banning school trips and cruises. It was only when a leading epidemiologist in the government team updated his models to reflect the high rates of hospitalization of COVID-19 patients in Italy that Johnson finally relented and ordered a full lockdown, in the last week of March.
This chain of events is perhaps unsurprising in the context of a Brexiter administration determined to go it alone rather than learn lessons from European neighbours. It was blindingly obvious from early March that the pandemic was overwhelming a healthcare system that ranked among the best in the world, in one of Europe’s richest regions: Lombardy. Britain, with one of the lowest numbers of intensive care beds in Europe, was hardly better placed than Italy to cope with the outbreak. Yet Boris Johnson insisted that ‘what is happening in other countries doesn’t necessarily mirror what is happening in the UK’. The fact that nobody in government seemed to be talking with experts in other countries, is symptomatic of the insular thinking that underpins the Brexit project. But it also reflects the all-consuming challenges of leaving the European Union, which distracted the government from the pandemic. The Prime Minister, elected on a promise to ‘Get Brexit Done’ appeared to take a break from day-to-day affairs once the UK formally exited the EU on 31st January, and did not attend the first five meetings of the government’s emergency committee (COBRA) set up to monitor the pandemic.
In the midst of a once in a century public health crisis, Brexit threatens to make things worse. Even at a historic low point in relations between European Union member states, there has been close cooperation and a fair degree of generosity helping the hardest-hit countries secure medical supplies and even share hospital facilities. Britain, meanwhile, chose to rely on Brexit-friendly forms of international aid, such as procuring ventilators from Euroskeptic vacuum manufacturer Dyson, or from the volatile President of the United States. This equipment failed to materialize. Without a substantial manufacturing sector of its own, Britain was entirely dependent on international trade to secure protective equipment for healthcare workers. But many exporters earmarked production for domestic needs, or funnelled supplies to the highest bidder, often the United States.
And all of this happened before Britain had fully left Europe. Despite still benefitting from its continued participation in the EU’s pandemic warning system (the Early Warning and Response System), the UK government declined to request continued membership after Brexit, despite requests from public health authorities. Neither has the UK shown any interest in maintaining reciprocal access to healthcare to nationals of EU countries under the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme. Instead, from 2021, European Union migrants to the United Kingdom can expect to pay the health surcharge of £624 ($774) per annum, a policy designed to deal with the alleged problem of ‘health tourism’ (EU migrants visiting the UK solely to exploit free healthcare). Yet migration from the EU has been a key source of essential workers, including in the healthcare sector, and EU migrants are mostly young and make few demands on the health system. A policy of discouraging migration is the last thing a country faced with a massive healthcare crisis needs. Yet the government has continued to make policy on the basis of a frequently debunked myth that leaving the EU would make it easier to finance the National Health Service and reduce demands on it. Fittingly, one of the consultants who cared for Boris Johnson during his hospitalization for COVID1-19 was an Italian national.
The UK government’s official position remains that it will not seek an extension to the transition period and will be able to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by the end of 2020. This was always an ambitious, if not quixotic, plan, given the many years such negotiations usually take, but in a world preoccupied with the worst pandemic for a century and the worst economic crisis since the Second World War it has become simply impossible. Refusing to extend means leaving the European Union next year with no deal, putting up tariff barriers and checks on every port, instituting new trade rules with the entire world, after a year in which GDP is predicted to fall by potentially up to a third. Far from seeking to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic, some appear to see the pandemic as an opportunity to make the costs of a no-deal Brexit less visible in the midst of a deep global recession.
So the Brexit ship sails on. Predictions of economic and political disaster have long been dismissed by Brexiters as ‘project fear’. In the context of the most challenging year in British history since 1945, the shock of Brexit indeed begins to look like the least of our worries. But the anti-system culture of Brexit – a culture of insularity and hostility to international cooperation – has undermined the fight against COVID-19 in important ways. By the time Brexit is completed, the bulk of the damage will already have been done.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE. Image by European Parliament: Some rights reserved.
There is no such thing as ‘Brexit thinking’. There was a democratic vote to leave the EU ( a body that has hardly wrapped itself in glory during the pandemic). Then there is a pandemic, over which the government has made some bad mistakes, and in which its experience has more similarities than differences with France, Italy and Spain. The idea that Johnson’s style ‘imitates Trump’ because both are ‘iconoclastic’ is silly. Johnson’s style is Johnson’s – it hasn’t changed. His politics are patently not Trump’s, neither is the style of politics of the government. Brexit = Trump has been a pretty constant refrain from people who loathed leaving the EU.
‘[S]ome appear to see the pandemic as an opportunity to make the costs of a no-deal Brexit less visible in the midst of a deep global recession.’ Is there any evidence for that? There is non in the reference given. The fact is the UK is negotiating with a powerful, unaccountable organisation that will seek to maximise its insular interests just as much as the UK. The UK is asking for a trade agreement similar to that granted to other countries. Asserting its position robustly is more likely to yield a better deal for the UK than viewing Barnier / EU side as in any way a benign player.
Many who voted Brexit have every right to be a bit suspicious of the idea the Uk should postpone. They have witnessed years of prevarication, delay, dithering and attempts to reverse their decision. Had that not been the case then delaying may have been more politically acceptable. If there were such things, ‘Remain thinking’ may be responsible for ‘Brexit thinking’.
There clearly IS such a thing as Brexit thinking (I think it is best described as wishful thinking), and clearly there was nothing democratic about a vote procured by cheating.
The rest of your post is just a rant. Don’t forget to dry the dribble stains off of your chin when you’ve finished.
Justin, how could it be ‘wishful thinking’ for the UK to enact Bexit, when it happened on January 31st this year?
I appreciate that thousands of Remoaners have exhibited reality issues these past four years, but to claim that Brexit never happened suggests mental issues that require therapy.
“there was nothing democratic about a vote procured by cheating.”
Who cheated??
17.4 million Brits voted to Leave….how did they cheat? Did they vote more than once? Did they turn up at polling stations with weapons, keeping out Remain voters?
You need to accept reality.
You may think that anyone pushing for an extension should be viewed with suspicion. But from my side of the debate the argument that we should press ahead with transitioning on the 31st December to whatever trade arrangements we are or are not able to negotiate regardless of the terms of that deal, the circumstances we find ourselves in or the consequences of the the decision is patently absurd. Few voted Brexit credibly believing that it would result in a no deal scenario, nobody voted for it knowing we would implement it in the middle of a global economic collapse of the scale we are facing and not even the most ardent Brexiteer could argue that the slender majority that existed for Brexit would have held up had the circumstances and nature of the deal been known at the time of the vote. And I am sure that, given the circumstances, the majority of reasonable Brexit voters, even those who would support No Deal, would be open to a delay to allow us to manage the fall out from one crisis before imposing the next one on ourselves.
Deadlines concentrate minds.
This was proven when Boris became PM, and the EU was forced to change the ‘unchangeable’ WA.
At the moment, the EU is digging its heels in, but there is a deadline fast approaching at the end of this month and another in October (AFAIK).
Thousands of Leavers have indicated that the issue of a deal did not concern them, because countries always make deals with one another.
On the matter of votes, it should not be forgotten that the British were twice denied the opportunity to vote on joining European institutions such as the EEC and the EU. In 1970, Heath only promised in the Tory manifesto to continue negotiations with the EEC, not to join it. That was the last general election before the European Communities Act 1972.
A similar thing happened in 1992. Major hadn’t even faced the electorate as PM when he signed Maastricht in the February. He became leader (and therefore PM) after the Tories removed Maggie. The Tory manifesto of 1987 contained not a word on supporting further integration with Europe.
The EU didn’t change its mind. Johnson tore up one of the red lines he had resigned from the cabinet over only the previous year. If we had been willing to agree to a de facto border in the Irish sea a deal could have been done a year before. But May argued that no British government could do that.
It seems she was wrong. Johnson’s government did it.
And no doubt there are ‘thousands’ of leavers who don’t care about a deal. But there are certainly not the millions that would be needed for this to be the majority view of the country and just because leave won doesn’t give leavers the absolute right to dictate how we leave. So to argue that it is democratic to lead us into an arrangement with the EU that was completely unenvisaged at the time of the referendum is disingenuous.
And deadlines do focus minds. But they also lead to bad deals. In 20 years time – or even at the next election – no-one will remember whether or not the deal was done exactly ‘on time’. But they certainly will remember if it was a good deal or not. There is no rush to get this over the line. Far better to take time over it and get it right.
It’s also worth noting that the UK is much more likely to get what it wants if it gives more time to the negotiation. The Commission can only negotiate in line with the mandate agreed by the member states. Consulting with the member states and changing its mandate will take time. If it wants a deal by the end of the year it will be on the current mandate. With delay there might be room for manoeuvre.
Boris got a deal by reverting to the initial arrangement negotiated by Theresa May, prior to the panic phone call from Arlene Foster. Typically he has ever since tried to deny the inevitable consequence of the deal – a customs barrier between GB and NI.
Sail on with your blinkers firmly in place. Your arguments are patently out of line with most serious commentary on covid.
Jim Butcher expresses the feelings and suspicions of many who voted to leave the EU. He may well be correct in saying that if those who were convinced that brexit was a historic mistake had not fought to stop it “then delaying may have been more politically acceptable”. But we are where we are. Jim does not address the immense threat which a combination of failure to get a deal by December 31 and the malign effects of the pandemic would entail. It is taking an unconsciounable risk with our people, however they voted in 2016.
Difficult to win when the Leave team cheat. But cheating was the only way you ever could win.
Explain how Leave voters cheated.
Although it puts forward a view that perhaps invites contention, this article seems soundly constructed.
There are always two sides (at least) to an argument, Jim. Yours is predicated your opinions around Brexit. Facts prove (and will continue to prove) that some learned members of this Govt made a handsome pile betting on a successful Brexit. Maybe you bet that way too, who knows… Asking for evidence to back the theory that this Govt is hiding the cost of Brexit sounds pretty lazy. Do the research, the writer does not need to spoon-feed us. The information is out there already. I also disagree with your comment about BJ and his cronies doing their own thing, rather than following Trump’s style. For decades, the UK has been vomited upon by the US and its debauched society, its hedonistic culture and behaviours. BJ and his cronies have adopted the Trump style like drug addicts on heroin. They lost their moral compass at birth, and in my opinion, BJ is the bastard son of the Conservative Party faithful who have also lost their moral compass, due to their fatalistic devotion to Brexit. So, if you have lost a dear member of your family to nCVD19, you don’t have to dig too deep to discover that the so-called smart scientists (more like amateur social scientists) preferred to wait for herd immunity, rather than take the WHO’s advice and risk mitigate early. Why? The somewhat cold and calculating ‘politicians’ decided oto protect the economy (hard cash in their pockets) rather than save lives. These are the kind of human beings you are prepared to trust to bring the Brexit bacon home. I hope you have not lost any loved ones, but if you did, like so many of the grieving families that did, without even getting a chance to be with the dying relative, you must be in anguish and deep in mourning. I accuse this Govt of putting personal financial interest ahead protecting the lives of hard working tax payers. Cynics will argue that Govt does not need to cater for over 50,000 people’s pension payouts, and health provisioning going forward! These politicians and their advisors are only interested in themselves and their financial well being. Let’s wait and see how the no-deal Brexit pans out. Any country wanting to strike a deal with a bankrupt Britain will come into negotiations holding all the aces. This country has very little left to sell, zero manufacturing, a travel industry that is seriously bankrupt, and a service industry that is sub-optimal. In good time, the finance sector may also see the wood for the trees and move their businesses away from the UK. Enjoy Brexit, and when your pension pot dips into the red, make a dash down to your local superstore. They may just about be able to afford to hire you to stack their shelves. Harsh…… but fair. Of course, all IMHO.
Imagine you’ve just achieved a huge victory and you’ve left the EU on 31 Jan and some busy-body negative suspect Remoaner civil servant tells you about some virus in China which is supposed to devastate the country and take your mind off much more important things i.e. Brexit.
Will you listen? Will you do anything? Won’t you get very cross?
That’s a big part of “Brexit thinking” that sabotaged the response to Covid 19!
And Jim Butcher’s idea that Brexit has been successfully thwarted by Remainers is nonsense. It’s the incompetence of Brexiteers, the Tory party, the Government and Parliament that have thwarted Brexit. Nobody had thought of how to do Brexit. Brexiteers had no proposals, and they still don’t know how to do it. It’s utter incompetence that has thwarted Brexit. UK government has been a shambles since the months before the Referendum. (The BBC has very faithfully and very objectively reported it all very negatively!)
The triangular pincer of Brexit, COVID and economic global recession, plus a near-dysfunctional WTO is a cocktail primed to destroy livelihoods big time. The one element over which the Government has some control is Brexit and it would be unconscionable not to mitigate its deleterious effects upon vulnerable communities and the Celtic hinterlands. A prolongation of the extension and a more sane balanced negotiating stance are surely moral imperatives….sabre rattling over statues is only small change in comparison
““One of the easiest things in the world right now is for people to apply hindsight that we didn’t have at the time and say ‘you should have done everything differently’.”
A prime example of Brexit thinking you may think, but actually it is quote from arc-remainer Nicola Sturgeon.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/nicola-sturgeon-agonises-over-decisions-taken-throughout-coronavirus-crisis/
“To have kept older people, with no medical need to be in hospital, where they were would have been putting them at enormous risk as well.
“You can apply hindsight, but we were trying to do the best things at the time. Back then we didn’t think that testing people without symptoms was something that was scientifically and clinically an effective thing to do.”
….. “And, like I say, our care home death rate in Scotland is more than double that of England.”
It remains a matter of speculation if the shelving of the Implementation section of the PHE Report on the Impact of COVID-19 on the BAME groups was influenced by the Brexit ethos of controlling the flow of inconvenient information relating to performance and competence. The extrapolation of ethnic discrimination into issues of imperialism, slavery and colonialism with the removal of its symbols, directly confronted the accepted mores of civic society and the self belief in British exceptionalism, which pervaded the Brexit debate. The arrival of the far right on the scene, to ‘protect the national heritage’ or to generate street violence against Black Lives Matter (as the Trotsky-leaning SWP appear to have infiltrated the latter) has led Boris to denounce events as ‘racist thuggery without tackling the issues. There is however a thread leading from a Brexit mentality eloquently outlined in Jonathan’s article through to a reluctance to analyse the practical steps to follow up on the impact of COVID on ethnic minorities, the outpouring of rage by the BAME community and reprisal action being taken by the far-right. .
“….the Brexit ethos of controlling the flow of inconvenient information relating to performance and competence.”
Yes, becuase no British governemnt has ever kept such information from the public, right?
‘Brexit’ and ‘damage-limitation’ are not linked.
” The extrapolation of ethnic discrimination…….which pervaded the Brexit debate.”
The underlying message from the Remain Campaign (and many Remain voters) was that the British would be useless at ruling themselves. Obviously, not all Remainers indicated this (and the RC studiously avoided doing this) because many of them refused to accept the fact that membership of the EU means being ruled by the EU.
As for ‘racist thuggery’, few things could be more anti-white racist than the BLM movement.
It only gets upset at the deaths of blacks at the hands of whites.
How depressing. The underlying ethos of the Remain campaign had nothing to do with whether or not the UK could rule itself: it never stopped doing so. It had to do with recognising that the UK, as a medium sized nation, was more powerful when pooling an element of sovereignty and acting together with its closest neighbours than when standing alone. It had to do with the recognition that post-Brexit we would not only face a world dominated by three superpower economic blocs – the US, EU and China – but that we would be living at the backdoor of one of them. It recognised that membership of one of them at least gave us a chance to influence and lead rather than simply ending up pulled into someone else’s sphere of influence as a rule-taker. As a result the whole notion of sovereignty – always a pretty abstract argument for something with such obvious and concrete downsides – would turn out to be a moot point. As it happens this is exactly what is happening. We are the crucible, through the Huawei debate, chlorinated chicken etc, of a giant fight between the superpowers.
Of course the powers behind Brexit knew all this. Indeed they welcome it. They might have called the EU out for its infringement of our rights in order to mobilise their base but the endgame was always a lurch towards the US with its low tax, low regulation regime, hence why Johnson won’t rule out compromised food standards or phytosanitary hygiene.
This article makes very clear that in the first post-Brexit crisis, during which many of the early, disastrous decisions were motivated less by the much-vaunted science and more by the desire to be seen not to be doing what the EU did. It was as if Johnson et al thought that if we could demonstrate our exceptionalism by riding through the storm with traditional British pluck and determination (as if no other county possessed such qualities) without falling back on the sort of measures – such as lockdown – to which lesser countries had to resort then we could lay to rest the suggestion that Britain wouldn’t flourish after Brexit.
All that said, the fact that we ended up with the worst death rate in Europe and worst per capita mortality in the world (barring Belgium) perhaps does suggest that the UK is not well prepared to manage in a difficult world all alone.
“The underlying ethos of the Remain campaign had nothing to do with whether or not the UK could rule itself.”
Eh??
The whole point of being in the EU (as opposed to the EEC) is that the EU governs its members states, and therefore those who campaigned for Remain were doing in order for that state of affairs to continue.
A nation that accepts laws from outside is not sovereign, and this fact was deliberately avoided by Remain during the Campaign.
Our sovereignty wasn’t ‘pooled’…..it was handed over to a form of government which has no moral reason to exist.
“This article makes very clear that in the first post-Brexit crisis, during which many of the early, disastrous decisions were motivated less by the much-vaunted science and more by the desire to be seen not to be doing what the EU did.”
You have chosen to post this comment in a thread which I started by making a very reasonable observation. Yet you have chosen to post your propaganda without reference to the question that I posed.
If the UK has been mistaken in its approach to the pandemic then until recently most of those policies and their timing were fully endorsed and enacted by arch remainer and EU cheerleader Nicola Sturgeon. (See for example the quotes in my previous comment) How then can you claim that our response to the virus is being driven by a Brexit mindset or antagonism to the EU if Nicola Sturgeon is following the same path? The bottom line is that there are 4 administrations in the UK and 4 chief medical officers and until recently there were all following near identical policies based upon the advice they were given by the Sage committee as interpreted by the Chief Scientist and the 4 CMOs. It seems likely that the scientists didn’t always give the optimum advice but they tried their honest best and their views on the EU did not affect their science.
I will quote Nicola Sturgeon again. “You can apply hindsight, but we were trying to do the best things at the time.”
My replies may be crossing over into two different posts. In relation to the Scottish Administration’s response, for which health is a devolved function, there has been overall a coordinated UK response. However, the virtual exclusion of the devolved administration’s from COBRA and limited influence in SAGE, plus the pressure being put on NI with a more radical and apparently more effective approach being taken in the Republic, have all led to the unravelling of a united UK approach. It is also to be noted that statistics, particularly mortality rates, are being separated out to the four Administrations. This could suggest greater accountability being attributed to the four administrations, including Scotland, but it also masks the true UK figure, articularly when not compared to either the more realistic ONS figures or linked to international comparisons.
Our sovereignty wasn’t ‘pooled’…..it was handed over to a form of government which has no moral reason to exist.
It wasn’t ‘handed over’. A small part was shared with an organisation of which we were an equal, decision making member. On most matters, even the most contentious, including extra-EU immigration, sovereignty remained firmly with us.
The difference between pre and post Brexit is that post-Brexit we will still have to follow most of these rules – the vast majority relate to the rules of the market to which we sell half our exports – but we will have no influence over how they are made.
Please learn to use speechmarks when quoting others, otherwise your posts make no sense.
“A small part was shared with an organisation of which we were an equal, decision making member.”
Neither the UK government or electorate had a say in those decisions.
The EU isn’t designed to allow for such events.
The EU Parliament isn’t wholly-elected by a single nation, and it cannot present legislation.
The EU Commissioner that the UK sends swears an oath preventing them from being influenced by the UK government:
“to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union; in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity…”
So, the UK was not part of any decision-making process.
“The difference between pre and post Brexit is that post-Brexit we will still have to follow most of these rules – the vast majority relate to the rules of the market to which we sell half our exports – but we will have no influence over how they are made.”
Do you mean ‘laws’?
EU law states that member states must accept FOM. The UK no longer has to do that.
As for standards, the EU and the UK use those decided by UNECE.
The current trade talks will decide which laws the UK will accept and which it won’t.
It’s all part of being a sovereign nation. After all, Canada didn’t accept FOM.
So no explanation from ‘empfindlich’ as to why he felt able to post, in a thread that I had started, views contrary to the points that I had made without even a nominal attempt to address them. Ironically, the discussion of this article started by addressing ‘Brexit thinking’ but ultimately told us something about ‘Remainer thinking’ or at least the lack of it (not to mention the lack of good manners).
The suggestion that the Government was entirely transparent with the media over key facts is hardly borne out by actual events. Even in the COVID debate the ONS has had to take the Government to task over its misrepresentation of facts.
To claim that remainers (a questionable construct) would be’ useless at ruling themselves’ is not a concept that I recognise, apart from it being a meaningless slogan. My perception is that the main driving force of those who wished to remain within the EU was that it was in the national interest, improving livelihoods, facilitating international scientific research and an unwillingness to be exposed solely to trading under WTO terms which would be the kiss of death for many regions and low income groups in the country.
The BLM movement is only in the early stages of its formation, has not developed a cohesive policy on ethnicity and racism and has been spontaneously reacting to events without a clear identified leadership. Its infiltration by the SWP, if true, risks taking it off course. But, as yet it is work in progress, but it does not deserve to be labelled as ‘racist’
“The suggestion that the Government was entirely transparent with the media over key facts is hardly borne out by actual events. ”
I don’t recall stating that our governments are ever open with us.
“To claim that remainers (a questionable construct) would be’ useless at ruling themselves’ is not a concept that I recognise, apart from it being a meaningless slogan.”
Which is why I didn’t say it.
What I actually stated was:
“The underlying message from the Remain Campaign (and many Remain voters) was that the British would be useless at ruling themselves. ”
See the difference?
If it helps, were the British vote to Leave, it would be a nation of Leavers, or at least a Leave majority among those who gave a toss either way. We know that 17.4 million voted to leave, 16 million voted to remain, and 13 million told us they didn’t care by abstaining.
“The BLM movement is only in the early stages of its formation, has not developed a cohesive policy on ethnicity and racism and has been spontaneously reacting to events without a clear identified leadership. ”
The facts so far:
1) BLM does not protest/riot when a black is killed by a black.
2) BLM does not protest/riot when its protests/riots lead to the deaths of other blacks or the loses of businesses/jobs of blacks.
The only possible deduction from these facts is that only some Black Lives Matter to BLM.
Case closed.
Unfortunately, the case is far from closed; we are embarking on a charade of a Brexit that will hurt many people. In relation to the BLM it is likely to have far-reaching repercussions on life in the country, with possible radicalisation of both the left and the right. But discriimination will have to be rooted out at all cost.
In response to Gary Schofield’s post of June 14, 2020 at 2:41 pm
Perhaps “There is no such thing as ‘Brexit thinking” but, were it to emerge, this ragbag of misconceptions and amputated logic usefully illustrates its likely characteristics.
Hugh Riddle:
“Perhaps “There is no such thing as ‘Brexit thinking” but, were it to emerge, this ragbag of misconceptions and amputated logic usefully illustrates its likely characteristics.”
It isremotely possible that that collection of words meant something in your head, but that’s where they should have stayed.
JM
So I posted a point about Nicola Sturgeon and you respond with a post about imperialism, slavery, colonialism and furthermore “the self belief in British exceptionalism, which pervaded the Brexit debate”. Hey guess what Nicola Sturgeon was actually on the other side of the Brexit debate but nevertheless with one small exception she marched in step with Boris until well past the peak of the infection. If you don’t have a response to what I posted just say so. Don’t just change the subject to something else where you feel you can comfortably argue your corner. That’s the sort of evasive behaviour we expect from Boris Johnson. If you are going to be just as evasive as he is then you have no right to criticise him.
Hi TJ,
nobody else seems to want to tackle your point about Nicola Sturgeon and Scotland, so I will. You say “The bottom line is that there are 4 administrations in the UK and 4 chief medical officers and until recently there were all following near identical policies based upon the advice they were given by the Sage committee as interpreted by the Chief Scientist and the 4 CMOs.” But Sage’s advice was surely compromised by the presence of Dominic Cummings on it? See the Guardian article for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/26/the-guardian-view-on-dominic-cummings-is-he-able-to-give-sage-advice .
You can hardly blame Nicola Sturgeon for following Sage’s advice. What else could she do, set up an independent expert commission?
From my viewpoint here in Germany I was completely gobsmacked by the way the Cheltenham Festival was allowed to go ahead when we had all been in lockdown for a week. Now in Germany the schools are gradually reopening, you can have your hair cut or eat in a restaurant or drink a beer in a Kneipe (there are restrictions, but not intolerable ones) and meanwhile the infection and fatality rates are way down. This was definitely one Spring when I haven’t been reciting Browning’s “Home Thoughts from Abroad”. I feel sorry for those back home in the UK who are suffering because the government advice seems to have been bungled.
Of course we both know enough about statistics to know that that is only “seems”. But right now it looks to me as if someone in the UK has blundered, and it looks likely to have been Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson.
Hi Alias,
Thank you for your response. I would like to respond in a positive spirit but I have to be honest and say that the Guardian article is garbage. It is nothing but speculation, innuendo and conspiracy theory. It is the sort of thing that we have got used to reading in US articles that support Trump. The bottom line is that the CMOs of the three devolved nations attend the Sage Meetings as observers. If anything untoward had gone on then we would heard it by now. Ms Sturgeon is not a shrinking violet if the committee had been influenced by ‘Brexit thinking’ or the committee conclusions had been interpreted by ‘Brexit thinking’ then we would at least have heard some mutterings. As it is Ms Sturgeon has been quite clear. “One of the easiest things in the world right now is for people to apply hindsight that we didn’t have at the time and say ‘you should have done everything differently’.”
To take up briefly the subject of the Guardian, I would refer you to the most recommended comment under the following article.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/apr/25/coronavirus-uk-calls-for-transparency-over-scientific-advice-to-ministers-latest-updates
The comment says “The story about Cummings chairing SAGE is the Guardian at its best.” I (and expect many other people) clicked the button to report this comment because the Guardian itself had clearly stated that Sir Patrick Vallance chaired the meetings. But the Guardian did not remove the comment and it went on to get over 500 recommendations thereby giving the false impression that this information had been validated. This is tantamount to the deliberate publication of fake news.
If you want to read the alternative view then I suggest that you seek out a Bloomberg Article dated 28 April and entitled “Johnson’s Top Aide Pushed Scientists to Back U.K. Lockdown” (Unfortunately the hyperlink for this article seems to have issues but you can find the article by searching for the title.)
“At the March 18 meeting, Cummings asked probing questions such as why the government should wait until the following week to impose a lockdown rather than doing so earlier.” …. “But the intervention from Cummings shifted the dynamic in favor of tightening the restrictions more quickly, one person said”
If Cummings did influence the committee, (contrary to the government’s assertions), then there is some evidence that he pushed for an earlier lockdown and none that he pushed against.
Hi TJ,
Thanks for the information. You make a number of good points. Perhaps the link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pushed-scientists-to-back-lockdown
will work better.
Thank you Alias,
My view is that the Government and the administrations had a plan to follow the scientific advice, but when that led to a poor outcome they floundered (particularly the national government).
There is an analogy here with flooding. A town with no flood defences gets to deal with floods quite efficiently but a town with flood defences has trouble coping if the defences are overwhelmed. The government thought that they had sufficient ‘flood protection’ against a major flu outbreak but the virus surge overwhelmed their planned response.
“It remains a matter of speculation if the shelving of the Implementation section of the PHE Report on the Impact of COVID-19 on the BAME groups was influenced by the Brexit ethos of controlling the flow of inconvenient information relating to performance and competence.”
It could otherwise be that the Implementation section was delayed because it didn’t correspond to the pre-packaged answers that the campaigners expected and that the government wished to check further that it was on safe ground. Most certainly the published report states that ”once age, sex, obesity and comorbidities are taken into account, there is no difference in the likelihood of being admitted to intensive care or of dying between ethnic groups”. There may be an issue with weight and comorbidities amongst ethnic groups, but that is a long term issue. In the short term we could try to reduce ethnic deaths by shielding those with comorbidities, but I would have thought that we are already trying to do that. We could of course in the short term place more restrictions on overweight people but I suspect the human rights activists would object to that. All of this must be seen in context. The report tells us that “This is the opposite of what is seen in previous years, when the mortality rates were lower in Asian and Black ethnic groups than White ethnic groups.” We should not rush too quickly to attribute the lower COVID death rates of white people solely to white privilege. There are other dimensions as well. We know examples in other countries where COVID has been spread through religious gatherings. A characteristic of white people in this country is their almost complete lack of religious observance. Ironically, it could be that a lack of spirituality has helped to protect white Brits.