Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I have to say I do have a lot of sympathy for the Chagosians in this. Handing over their islands to another completely unrelated group of people just because they happen to be closer?
Given how few the Chagosians are I wonder why an agreement can't be reached where they're allowed independence and the rent money for the base goes right to them.

[Sheilbh]

I have to say I do have a lot of sympathy for the Chagosians in this. Handing over their islands to another completely unrelated group of people just because they happen to be closer?
Given how few the Chagosians are I wonder why an agreement can't be reached where they're allowed independence and the rent money for the base goes right to them.

Legally it's correct. Philippe Sands the barrister who represented the Mauritian government on this - and has written excellent books on this, explains the legal point really well. His book The Last Colony is excellent on this.

But I think he absolutely speaks to some Chagosians but I think doesn't quite realise the extent to which the Mauritian and Chagosian view is not necessarily aligned.

[Tamas]

A quick note on the ongoing debate on assisted dying. A group opposing it will publish a "report" on it and one section in the Guardian summary highlights to me how this is a cruel and oppressive position to have:

It also says that the case advanced for legalisation unduly prioritises the argument for individual autonomy, holding this to be the paramount principle at the expense of other important considerations, such as the sanctity of life.

Now imagine the above written about abortion rights, as indeed I am sure it has been. That would make this a position almost indefensible in today's political climate left of the Christian right wing. And abortion is about the right to extinquish another life to maintain control over your own life and body. Assisted dying is to do so with your own life.

Simply put, one cannot oppose assisted dying while accepting abortion rights, and assisted dying is just the latest frontline of the fight against religious bigotry and oppression.

[Sheilbh]

We'll need to see as the report hasn't been released publicly yet but I think there is a possibility this may be the Guardian having the fight against the opponents it would like (right-wing, American, Evangelical Christians) rather than the people actually making the argument.

I think it is very unlikely a paper endorsed by Paralympian Baroness Grey-Thompson, Lord Sumption and Dominic Grieve (to my knowledge none of them religious) is going to be based on that type of argument.

The expectation was that this bill would pass very, very easily. We are one of the least religious societies in the world (though religious people and groups are entitled to their views and participating in public life) - I think only the Czechs have fewer believers than we do.

I think a combination of international experience (particularly Canada), the contents of the bill, practical issues, timing and procedural concerns have increased opposition. I think at the last count 14 cabinet members (including Starmer) back it, 9 (including the Health Secretary and Justice Secretary, who will be responsible for administering it) oppose it. A number of Labour have come out against it. There are Lib Dems for and against, I think most strikingly Ed Davey has come out against it - strikingly because he was a carer for his mother, has been a carer for his wife who has MS and is a carer for his son who has severe disabilities. I think that indicates that this is not about religious oppression. The major group raising a red flag about this are disability activists (hence Baroness Grey-Thompson and Davey's opposition).

And I think the inability of some supporters to imagine opposition based on anything but antediluvian religious bigotry. Basically, viewing themselves as purely motivated by compassion and care they find it impossible to imagine that any other view could be similarly motivated - when I think it is and I think it means they are not capable of engaging with people's real concerns, in particular from disability activists and (retired) family court judges.

But, yes, it is far easier to simply imagine that Ed Davey is actually the British incarnation of Mike Huckabee.

I do struggle with arguments based on individual autonomy (same as "rights" based arguments), because I think they very rarely engage with the reality that not all people experience individual autonomy in the same way. I think that is especially true in the context of the NHS - where in this thread and elsewhere I think we have all at some point or other said how you need to kick up a fuss and be your own advocate at times to get the attention and treatment you need. And not everyone feels as able to do that as a bunch of (generally) gobby, well-educated, middle-class men.

[Tamas]

Sheilbh, how does your argument NOT equally apply as an argument against abortion rights? Are there no vulnerable women who could be coerced into having an abortion when they would prefer to keep the child?

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, how does your argument NOT equally apply as an argument against abortion rights? Are there no vulnerable women who could be coerced into having an abortion when they would prefer to keep the child?

There's multiple arguments around assisted dying on both sides.

My point is that personally I think individual autonomy is a crock if it ignores the context in which its operating. It is imagining a perfect, rational, liberal, autonomous individual fully able to take advantage of their "rights". Right now in this country we've got over 7 million people waiting on NHS waiting lists. The social care system is a disaster - it does not function. That is the context, those are the elderly into which assisted dying will exist. It's a system where - even aside from the care system which is very bad - you already have to fight your case to get the care you should.

But I would feel a lot more well-disposed to an attempt to legalise assisted dying if we were two or three years into the NHS clearly recovering and functioning well, and after an attempt at social care reform (something every government since 2005 has identified needs to be done given how bad the system is).

Fundamentally I don't have an issue with abortion because I don't think unborn babies/foetuses are the same as existing people - and again the biggest opposition or people raising objections to assisted dying in this country are disability rights activists and generally I see just hand-waving away of the issues they're raising. But if the context of abortion being legalised was Magdalen laundries, mother and baby homes, coercive maternal wards then I suspect I'd have issues with it.

Semi-relatedly, I've no view on Leadbetter generally but I think her current line is basically that her bill has absolute, world-leading safeguards and if you're worried about them vote yes in principle and they can fix the practicalities later (on a purely procedural/legalist point - that's not how private member's bills work). I'm not sure those two arguments work together.

[HVC]

To use my classic bad analogies ( ), sheilbh it looks a lot like you're saying no one should drive because some are bad drivers. Wouldn't it be better to mitigate  bad actors/situations?

[Tamas]

I am hand-waving most of these concerns away because I find them very hypocritical. For the theoretical and unknown they want to continue condemning thousands upon thousands to needless misery and agony.

Also these concerns can be hand-waved away at this stage because the current bill is very limited. IIRC one has to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live to be able to seek permission. 

Finally, more as an aside, these future victims are supposed to be made to think they are a burden and they should off themselves. Well, I am sure there will be a tiny minority living such miserable lives that they are surrounded by family like that. But not wanting to be a burden can be an entirely independently arrived-to conclusion.

If I ever get into the situation where I KNOW I only have a few months of agony and indignation to look forward to (i.e. would fall under this bill) sure as hell one of my considerations would be to spare my family from experiencing that. If one of my family members wanted to do the same I would probably argue against it with all my might (I have a little experience of it, with 3 grandparents wishing and pleading for death at some point in their lives) , but I still would want to use the option myself.

I just cannot see a danger or slippery slope that's bigger than with anything else be it NHS triaging practices, rental market controls that see children dying of mould-induced illnesses, unnecessarily fast and big cars allowed on the road etc. At the core of the opposition is a refusal to accept that all humans WILL die. It's not a possibility, not a risk, it is a certainty.

[Josquius]

I have no interest in combing through the specific wording of the bill, but I could well imagine problems there with the risk of people knocking off relatives.

[Sheilbh]

To use my classic bad apologies ( ), sheilbh it looks a lot like you're saying no one should drive because some are bad drivers. Wouldn't it be better to mitigate  bad actors/situations?

I do think eventually we should be aiming to ban cars

Again this only really relates to the "individual autonomy" argument. I don't think that works in the context of a failing NHS and a dysfunctional social care system - so the law should be looking to build in the vulnerabilities of people in the system into how assisted dying works. It doesn't. It's the same point disability campaigners are making - it does not protect the vulnerable.

Ideally of course you'd be on course to fix the NHS, have worked on social care reform so those people who rely on the NHS and care system were less vulnerable and then look at legalising assisted dying.

I would say purely from a legal perspective, I think the legislation is bad in lots of ways. Its safeguards are very one-sided, there is a judicial safeguard that the former head of the Family Division in the High Court has said will not work and there is an incredibly sweeping exemption for all civil liability (even for negligence) which is very odd. It's not well thought through.

To throw legislation like that into a hugely back-logged NHS and dysfunctional, unreformed social care sector. So if it happens right now, I promise you it will be one of those scandals that results in a multi-million, multi-year public inquiry into how this could possibly have happened - because predictable, predicted things will happen.

[Sheilbh]

I have no interest in combing through the specific wording of the bill, but I could well imagine problems there with the risk of people knocking off relatives.

I've seen all sides. I've got family who have dementia, have had terminal illnesses and wanted euthanasia - I've also had family who have had horrendous malpractice from the NHS (and never questioning a doctor because "mustn't grumble" and after all, they're a doctor) I mean including having a limb amputated unnecessarily and at least one case where there's very strong suspicions of coercive control of an elderly, ill person into changing their will.

And definitely lots of older, poor relatives who "don't want to be a burden" on anyone.

All of these things exist.

I am hand-waving most of these concerns away because I find them very hypocritical. For the theoretical and unknown they want to continue condemning thousands upon thousands to needless misery and agony.

Also these concerns can be hand-waved away at this stage because the current bill is very limited. IIRC one has to be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live to be able to seek permission. 

It isn't theoretical and unknown, we can look at other countries like Canada where disability activists are facing exactly these issues. And again lots of legislation internationally has had that same provision. There is no area of law I feel as comfortable in saying there is a slippery slope - because every jurisdiction sees it expand quite rapidly, quite significantly (and not necessarily through legislative change). Again this is why disability activists are so concerned.

There is no reason to think that the UK would implement this and somehow avoid those issues that have occurred in literally every jurisdiction that's gone down this route.

Finally, more as an aside, these future victims are supposed to be made to think they are a burden and they should off themselves. Well, I am sure there will be a tiny minority living such miserable lives that they are surrounded by family like that. But not wanting to be a burden can be an entirely independently arrived-to conclusion.

Social care in this country is privatised. It's often run out of former B&Bs as small businesses - in terms of those small businesses it's not a million miles away from buy-to-let landlords. It's often a retirement income for someone rather than a consolidated business (though there is some increasing consolidation. It's a sector that depends on local councils, who are often spending about 80% of their budget on social care now (that will increase).

There are regulations and a regulator but it's a sector with incredibly low profit margins, very low pay and regular scandals of staff physically and verbally assaulting residents, or just neglecting them. For example people being left in their own waste. There have been multiple scandals uncovered by concerned family members leaving hidden cameras when they visit.

Even if people are not being coerced I query whether that is a "free" decision of an autonomous individual - same with a disabled person on benefits waiting forever for support with appropriate housing that they need. Again that is the actual context in this country.

As I say I think it is not just predictable but inevitable that legalising it at this point will be a huge scandal in 20 years time with former ministers and NHS administrators and council leaders giving evidence on TV in front of an independent judge led inquiry on how it went so wrong.

I've definitely had relatives who "do not want to be a burden" - that slightly "mustn't grumble", don't want to put anyone out side of British culture may be dying out. But I'm not sure it is and I think we've already seen people making the argument that actually this is about reducing the burden on the NHS. I would add that even during covid I don't think any other country had a main lockdown message like "save the NHS". 

Again I'd be a lot more comfortable legalising this if we had a better functioning health system, a working social care system and a less weird attitude towards the NHS (and less class-based deference to doctors) - because then I think it could be fulfilling individual desires. I'm very uncomfortable with it in the current context - as I say I find Ed Davey's opposition very striking.

Although, if I were an MP I'd vote against this bill in all circumstances because I think it's a badly thought through and written piece of legislation.

[Tamas]

I've definitely had relatives who "do not want to be a burden" - that slightly "mustn't grumble", don't want to put anyone out side of British culture may be dying out.

That's not a British thing. It's a human thing. Having your children wipe your butt and spoon-feed you while you inch through a haze of pain to inevitable death is not something all people wish to hang around for a few months for. Even, and especially, if said children are otherwise happy to do all that.

I don't know. For me a need for dignity and control and a final say in one's fate is evident and obvious and efforts to curtail these appear inhumane, cruel, and cowardly. Because of this I am not overly concerned about the minutia of this particular bill. We need to unlock the obsolete current legislation and start things moving.

[Sheilbh]

I'd add in that piece Harriet Harman says that it was wrong for the Health Secretary to commission an impact assessment "which he will have to publish - he will then of necessity have to balance that against the cost of the person staying alive. That leads you to the awful prospect that the research could find that it is cheaper for people to be doing assisted dying rather than staying alive, and that would really contaminate the argument."

I think in uttering it, it is already contaminated - but a Health Secretary has to assess the cost doing assisted dying because that's their budget. But I'd also add Baroness Hale, former President of the Supreme Court, saying it's not "necessarily irrational for somebody to take into account [...] the burden that looking after them is placing upon the whole community." Or Matthew Parris in The Times, "'Your time is up' will never be an order, but — yes, the objectors are right — may one day be the kind of unspoken hint that everybody understands. And that's a good thing."

I think to not acknowledge and try to address that risk (ideally by fixing the NHS and care system now) feels pretty wilfully blind of a very clear risk.