I didn’t vote Leave but I find it interesting how many of those that, like me, voted Remain have become venomous, screeching, pitchfork shaking maniacs towards those that did vote Leave, often demanding “Give me one tangible benefit of Brexit”! Well, shouldn’t we, in a democracy, which the UK is last time I looked, be asking “give me one tangible benefit of being an EU member”.

It’s almost become a cult, with EU flags and ‘FBPE’ proudly adorning their social media profiles. Apart from the fact the EU doesn’t have a ‘flag’ because it isn’t a country or state, it’s purely a logo, using FBPE as a badge of honour is rather churlish.

Here’s my take on the EU, having had 5 years to do some research and give myself a talking to about the error of my ways. In my defence, I didn’t know enough about the implications of leaving or remaining in the EU and shouldn’t really have voted at all, but I did. I actually only personally know one other person who voted to remain and she’s a teacher!

A ratchet can be a handy tool. If you’ve ever had to tighten an inaccessible bolt you will know how satisfying and reassuring it is to feel the ratchet biting on the nut, driving it further in, securing it properly, letting you know that it’s safe.

In politics, however, a ratchet is not so much reassuring as alarming. Occasionally we see political processes which drive an agenda onwards, one click at a time, bolting it in securely to the point that it becomes almost impossible to undo. Ratchets are rare in most democratic systems. They may even be specifically precluded by stipulations such as “one Parliament cannot bind the hands of another,” but one of the criticisms of EU membership is that it is a living embodiment of a ratchet effect. And, like its mechanical equivalent, it is deceptive because none of the individual components might seem unduly threatening in itself.

Since the EU referendum in 2016, a frequent demand made of Leavers is, “Tell me one thing you dislike about the EU”, or “Name one piece of actual legislation you object to”. The problem with this approach is that there are so many fundamental errors in the design and implementation of the EU, and so many pieces of objectionable law-making, that the Leave voter doesn’t know where to start. If you comply with the demand and specify one, you are asked, “Is that it? All this chaos and uncertainty just because of EU Directive 2141/70?” The Leave vote is then mischaracterised as an act of vandalism that rips everything apart just because of a regulation about pilchard canning procedures. In any case, all governments will pass bad laws. All institutions will have examples of poor governance.

The truth is that there are many reasons for voting Leave, and several of these are interconnected across multiple domains. The EU itself is a complex web of dysfunctionality, and Leave voters find it hard to collapse this complexity down to one sound-bite. The demand itself is actually a bad faith argument, because your interlocutor almost certainly knows that the Leave vote is driven by a sense that an anti-democratic institution cannot be benign and will not survive. It resembles a conversation which goes like this: “So, you say you love reading! What is your favourite book?” Then, when you are dumbstruck by the inanity of this, the follow-up is: “Ah! Not much of a reader then!”

The proper response for any-one caught out by this rhetorical trap is to say, “I can’t give you one reason why I voted Leave because that would be absurd. I can only give you multiple.” For what it’s worth, here are ten. Each of these could stand on its own merits, but it is only when you step back and view the entire snarl-up that you realise that the many problems of the EU are not merely intertwined, but interlocked. It is the interlock of its component parts which gives the EU a ratchet-like effect on European politics.

1. Popper’s criterion: How can a bad government be removed?

Tony Benn famously stated that those in positions of economic, social, and political power should always be asked five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?” Benn repeated this many times at rallies, protests and marches. He commented to his friend and fellow campaigner John Nichols that his favourite question was the final one. “Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system” (his views are described in detail in an article by John Nichols in www.thenation.com, 14th March 2014).

Whatever view you take of Benn’s politics, there can be no denying the fundamental truth of this final statement. Indeed, this is a subject that has been the focus of political philosophy for generations. David Deutsch in The Beginning of Infinity explores the views of Karl Popper, who applies his general concept of ‘How can we detect and eliminate error?’ to political philosophy and boils it down to ‘How can we rid ourselves of bad government without violence?’ Political institutions should not make it hard to oppose rulers and policies non-violently. As Deutsch puts it: “Systems of government are to be judged not for their prophetic ability to choose and install good leaders and policies, but for their ability to remove bad ones that are already there.”

The EU fails this essential criterion, because it is structured by international treaties which are almost irreversible, and it is designed in ways which make it unwieldy and inflexible. Powers have essentially been given up by elected governments, in favour of an unelected Commission and Secretariat. As ever, it was Benn who put his finger on this. In a speech during the original EEC Referendum in 1975, he remarked: “We live in a continent where increasingly powers have gone to a group of people who are not elected, cannot be removed, and do not have to listen to us.”

For many voters, a desire to leave was driven by considerations of sovereignty and control, but the problems which have emerged are technical matters of just-in-time supply chains, and customs arrangements at the Irish border. Prior to the referendum in 2016, people who expressed anxiety about the creeping supranationalism of the EU were told, “You can leave any time you want.” When they duly voted to leave (largely because of the same concerns), they were told, “You cannot leave, because the just-in-time supply chains for the Nissan factory in Sunderland will cease to function.”

Ironically, the hard-line Remainers have simply made things difficult for themselves in this as in so much. They have been so determined to establish that “we cannot leave” that they have made the Leavers’ point for them. If we can never leave, the EU fails Popper’s criterion and it becomes a bad institution. Is it really true that the UK can never become an independent country? If so, this is the most shocking revelation of all.

2. Primacy of EU Law.

The fact that the EU is “hard to leave” is worrying enough, but this is compounded by the fact that the EU has arrogated to itself a primacy in law, so that EU law essentially trumps national laws and customs.

The Treaty of Lisbon formalised (but didn’t start) this shift of primacy. The Treaty stated that, “in accordance with well-settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of member states”. Unlike other international treaties, this means that the Treaty of Lisbon penetrates into domestic law and over-rides the decisions of domestic courts. As Martin Howe QC pointed out, this penetration is actually a characteristic of a federal state rather than an international treaty. The process started much earlier, not in the text of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 but with the way that Treaty was interpreted by the European Court of Justice (and in fact the judicial activism of the ECJ is a whole topic in its own right). Howe quotes European case-law (Costa v ENEL 1964): “The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights.”

3. Legitimacy of the Constitutional arrangements.

Such a profound change in sovereignty ought to be built on a solid foundation of legitimacy, but needless to say this was never put to a popular vote in the UK. The primacy of UK law was basically given away by UK politicians without any attempt to seek a popular mandate for this change. (For a summary of the processes involved, see the long Twitter thread by @verumandverus on 27th February 2018).

In 46 years the UK electorate has been allowed 2 referenda on EEC/EU matters. Over that period the EU has changed substantially, not only in size and reach but in its stated goals and purposes. Despite this, there was no “people’s vote” in the UK for the Accession Treaty of 1979, the Accession Treaty of 1985, the Accession Treaty of 1994, the Accession Treaty of 2003, the Accession Treaty of 2005, the Accession Treaty of 2011, the Single European Act of 1986, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 (which ushered in the EU from the EC), the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, the Treaty of Nice of 2001, or for the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. Bit by bit, these treaties and Acts ensured the steady intrusion of the EEC/EC/EU into more and more parts of everyday life, and with no attempt to seek a democratic mandate for doing so. In each case the incursion becomes irreversible, because any attempt to reform these foundational documents is dismissed out of hand by the EU Commission. International treaties cannot simply be waved away by Act of Parliament. It is hard to imagine that many countries in the world would have allowed such massive shifts in their constitutional and regulatory arrangements to take place without conspicuous popular consent, but that is indeed what has happened.

4. Democratic Deficit.

The lack of democratic legitimacy goes much further and deeper. The structures of the EU are themselves poor implementations of democracy, either because they are too unwieldy, or because they are designed to by-pass the democratic process.

The EU Commission is the only institution empowered to initiate legislation (www.europarl.europa.eu). The EU commissioners are proposed by national governments (one per state) but are not elected (and in fact are often politicians who have failed to be elected in their own countries). The EU Commission operates as something of a hybrid between a Civil Service and an Executive, and it manages the day-to-day business of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath pledging to respect the Treaties of the EU (which effectively mandates them to prioritise EU affairs over nation states). This latter point is critical, and it could be described as a problem of “emergence”, in that the EU Commissioners have a primary statutory duty to the EU and not to the nation states.

Almost uniquely in the world, the EU Parliament does not and cannot propose legislation. It can modify and amend, and it can reject, but it cannot initiate new acts of parliament. Yet, bizarrely, the EU Parliament is the only piece of the apparatus within EU structures which has a direct claim to democratic accountability.

We have become so accustomed to this that we are blinded to its shortcomings. Democracy is here turned on its head. The civil service ought to operate as a moderating influence ensuring continuity of good governance while elected governments come and go. In the EU this can never happen, by design, because there are no elected governments, there is no “coming and going”, there is just a permanent Commission and we have no direct role in putting it there or removing it.

It is actually instructive to look at this deficit, which is baked into the EU structure, when considering the response of Leavers and hard-line Remain to the Referendum result in 2016. On the one hand, longstanding frustrations and suspicions of illegitimacy, exacerbated by the failure to implement the Referendum result, and on the other hand nonchalance about overturning a democratic mandate and a bizarre belief that our superiors in Brussels know what they are doing, and the voters need to be kept well away.

The fact that the “Stop Brexit” brigade have triggered an electoral backlash is hardly surprising. As political philosopher John Tasioulas remarked, “For all the talk about new-fangled rights, it turns out that people give a very high priority to longstanding rights such as democracy and sovereignty.” (@JTasioulas, 12th May 2019.)

5. Democracy requires a demos.

There are even deeper problems than the undemocratic architecture of the EU governing bodies. At another level entirely, the problems of the EU relate to ideas of citizenship and belonging. Citizenship is not only about the politics of public authority, it is also about the social reality of peoplehood. As Thomas Fazi put it: “Democracy presupposes the existence of an underlying demos — a political community usually (though not exclusively) defined by a shared and relatively homogenous language, culture, history, normative system etc., the majority of whose members feel sufficiently connected to each other to voluntarily commit to a democratic discourse and to a related decision-making process.” (The European Union is an Antidemocratic Disgrace, jacobinmag.com, 23rd May 2019).

Many of the arguments surrounding independence, sovereignty, secession etc. around the world arise from disputes about the boundaries of the demos. Sadly, the EU has never been able to establish its own demos and seems fated never to be able to.

One of the bizarre consequences of EU membership is that it has allowed a sort of “gravity model” borrowed from economics to be applied to social policy and legal arrangements. We are constantly told that the citizens of the EU must have a lot in common with each other because our respective countries are neighbours. But this doesn’t follow at all. It may well be the case that individuals, and families, and indeed entire social groups within the UK, might have more in common with people in India or Canada than with Latvia or Bulgaria. This doesn’t just apply to the UK. A voter in Lisbon might feel more connected to a distant cousin in Rio de Janeiro than with a stranger in Estonia. The point is, there never has been and never will be a European demos, and one cannot be magically brought into existence by a directive from Brussels.

Be that as it may, Leave voters take the view that, whatever their connections to cousins around the world, there needs to be some form of local accountability for legislators and government machinery, along with a sense of shared values. The realisation that one’s message has been received and understood is a powerful reliever of frustration, grievance, and anxiety.

Localism and globalism co-exist. You might have a cousin in Sydney, and an employer based in Calcutta, but it is reasonable for you to want your law-makers to live and work nearby and to have some awareness of what is happening in your life.

6. Supranationalism vs intergovernmentalism.

This touches on one of the other errors in hard-line Remain thinking. When confronted with evidence that the Leave voter is quite happy about the existence of NATO, or the WHO, or the WTO (or indeed any other body anywhere in the world where two or more nation states cooperate), the response is, “Ah! You’re perfectly happy to be a member of X but yet you want to leave the EU! What incoherence and contradiction!”

This is a surprisingly common misconception. Intergovernmentalism is not the same as supranationalism. Governments must cooperate. Nation states must work together. The world requires integrated systems for trade and economic activity, as well as public health and environmental protection etc. None of this implies the need for a European super-state which is politically committed to ever-closer union. As far as the UK is concerned, intergovernmentalism will be weakened by continued EU membership, because the UK cannot act as a sovereign state when it is part of a larger entity.

7. The role of “Experts”.

In one of the most misquoted remarks of the EU referendum, Michael Gove told Faisal Islam that, “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.” (Sky News, 3rd June 2016). Faisal Islam, who interrupted Gove, immediately mangled this to, “People have had enough of experts?” and this is the version that has stuck. (For example, “Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove”, Financial Times, 3rd June 2016). The role of experts has been much debated ever since, and to the exasperation of onlookers the term ‘expert’ has become a proxy for ‘the educated intelligent person’ in contrast to hoi polloi.

There has been much wrong with the ensuing conversation, not least that it has exposed various strands of snobbery, elitism, complacency, and even a certain anti-democratic impulse amongst the UK’s commentariat. Nevertheless, this is a useful debate for any society to have, and in this case the conclusions that Leave voters have drawn have not been advantageous to the so-called ‘experts’.

In the first place, the experts have usually been technocrats, who are qualified to answer particular questions about economics or trade, but they have been allowed to dominate a discussion about sovereignty and independence. The fundamental question of “what kind of country do I want to live in?” cannot really be adequately answered by an expert in tariff procedures on the Dover-Calais shipping route. In fact, the question is not addressed to an expert at all, but to the ordinary voter. This hasn’t stopped an army of experts from replying “I know best.” These experts have actually failed a basic test. They don’t know the difference between a technical question and a value judgment. The ability to fine-tune a technocratic detail is irrelevant in a conversation about fundamental democratic rights.

Secondly, not all experts are in agreement about these technical matters, but some experts are given less attention. For example, the Guardian economics editor Larry Elliot has written extensively about the damaging effects of EU membership, but his voice has been drowned out. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has been steadily negative about Brexit, and has been afforded great status and esteem, but his predecessor Mervyn King, who is positive about Brexit, has been disregarded (“UK should leave EU with no deal, says former Bank of England governor”, Guardian, 29th March 2019).

Some of the flavour of this discussion can be seen in the backlash to a cartoon in the New Yorker on 3rd January 2017. The cartoon depicts a passenger on an airline standing up an addressing his fellow passengers with the words: “These smug pilots have lost touch with regular passengers like us. Who thinks I should fly the plane?” Many saw this a thinly-veiled insult to Trump and an attack on populism. If so, it back-fired, because the ensuing arguments provided ample opportunity for voters to point out the many ways in which the technocratic elites have let them down. It turns out that people know a real expert when they see one, and they value that expertise. People respect their optician, their obstetrician, the woman who set up their WiFi and the man who fixed the brakes on their car (and they certainly respect their airline pilot). But those talking heads on the TV? Not so much.

In fact, the brazen impertinence of these self-styled experts has simply added to the frustration and anger. This has been the second failing of the expert class. “The inability of a certain type of political professional to perceive the difference between the developed technical knowledge associated with a skill, and the bare assertion of a class-based right to exercise power, is a defining problem of the age” (@TheAgeofShoddy, 9th December 2018).

Far from being ideology-free, experts have a bias, a status, a position in the world. Their social world helps shape their perspectives. They are surrounded by like-minded experts who shape their views. This socialization process provides a perspective on how society should work that is often divorced from the interests of others (Matthew Lesh, AustraliaDivided.com). Expertise in one domain is no guarantee of superior decision-making in an unrelated field (any-one who doubts this can read about Bertrand Russell’s views on World War II).

8. Lack of positive reasons to Remain.

The Remain world-view likes to think of itself as “evidence-based” but in fact in key areas it operates at an ideological evidence-free level. Very few positive reasons to remain are ever advanced. As described above, the main arguments for Remain appear to be Fear and Loathing. Firstly, the UK can never hope to survive as a tiny little country on its own (despite the inconvenient fact that hundreds of smaller countries are surviving just fine). Secondly, Leave voters are stupid. They are “low-information, uneducated, racist, fascist, even Nazis.” It is worth exploring each of these in turn.

Fear is not an unreasonable driver for international politics. The Precautionary Principle may actually be a sensible guide (“avoid ruination if at all possible”). But, as David Deutsch describes in The Beginning of Infinity: “There is a closed loop of ideas here: on the assumption that knowledge is not going to grow, the precautionary principle is true; and on the assumption that the precautionary principle is true, we cannot afford to allow knowledge to grow. Unless a society is expecting its future choices to be better than its present ones, it will strive to make its present policies and institutions as immutable as possible.” This is essentially the hard-line Remain position; better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Optimism sounds like an airy-fairy basis to make radical constitutional change, but declinism and catastrophising are hardly more rational. There is a strong case that the technological advances of the 21st century will require nations to respond with speed of thought and action. Our future choices may indeed be better than our present ones.

In fact, pessimism may simply reflect a lack of imagination. “A mark of small minds is the assumption that what seems realistic to me now tracks the limits of the possible. History is full of transformations that seemed flatly impossible until they occurred, and the well-informed were often the most myopic about their possibility.” (Adrian Vermeule, 5th May 2019).

As for the disparagement of Leave voters, three years of continual belittlement has had the opposite effect from that intended. Strangely, people who voted in good faith, to choose one constitutional settlement over another, don’t like being called Nazis, and it makes them question whether there is anything at all that can be said in favour of EU membership. After all, if the EU is at heart a good and worthwhile institution, surely some-one would by now have come up with a coherent argument for remaining in it.

It is true that there are a small number of EU federalists in the UK; people who are supportive of the EU’s direction of travel and believe in “ever-closer Union”. This concept has never attracted much more than 10% in polls and is not likely to be an electoral winner for any UK party. This leads to a type of dishonesty amongst hard-line Remainers. What exactly do they want to remain part of? The idea of “Remain and Reform” is not a valid option, so the Remain case must be to support ever-closer union but it is rarely stated in these terms. This is an interesting counter-narrative to the charge that “People didn’t know what they were voting for.” Leave voters want to leave the EU, and they know this will be complex and messy, but Remain voters don’t know (or won’t say) what they want to remain part of.

Much of the criticism is back-to-front. Leave voters are called fascist (for wanting to respect democracy), empire-building (for wanting local accountability of politicians), and low-information (although they tend to be interested and informed about much of this debate). The charge of racism has been especially unwarranted. For wishing to arrive at a better constitutional settlement? Seriously? For many horrified onlookers, it has been this dishonesty that has hardened their resolve. Voters who only marginally voted Leave are now committed and zealous anti-EU hardliners.

9. Specific bad acts.

Contrary to what we are often told about the EU being a guarantor of peace and security in Europe, the EU has been a bad actor on the world stage. From its failure to act in Bosnia, and its mishandling of the migrant crisis, to its hurtful policies in the 3rd World, the EU has been negligent and malign rather than a force for good. Even the much-trumpeted Freedom of Movement has had disastrous consequences for the social fabric of Eastern European nations. The imbalances of the Eurozone create distortions between the economies of the North and South, and yet the Eurozone is a fundamental building block of the EU.

As for the endless stream of specific EU legislation covering more and more parts of life, there isn’t time and space here to describe the cumulative misadventure. People will have their own favourites. Just to give a flavour, I will give two long-standing and two recent examples of EU directives which have been unnecessarily damaging.

The European Arrest Warrant is a particularly pernicious piece of legislation. It allows unfair summary extradition to any EU country, with very few safeguards. It does not provide for the basic protection that a prima facie case be made in a domestic court before a UK resident is extradited (“It’s not just Eurosceptics who think the European arrest warrant is rotten”, Shami Chakrabati, Guardian, 10th November 2014).

The European Working Time Directive has been a controversial and heavy-handed top-down piece of legislation since it was introduced. Its basic goal was good (to prevent employers from enforcing employees to work long hours) but the implementation is extremely poor. In the NHS, it led to new shift patterns, disruption of rotas, adverse effects on training opportunities, and lowering of morale and job satisfaction (“UK Doctors’ views on the implementation of the European Working Time Directive as applied to medical practice”, BMJ open, 004390, 2013).

Since the EU referendum in 2016, the EU has continued to enact inappropriate and damaging legislation. GDPR became law in May 2018, and acts as a new privacy bill regulating online activity. It has had serious unintended consequences. One of its main provisions (Article 17) concerns the so-called “right to be forgotten”. This has allowed individuals to erase reference to their criminal activities on online databases. The compliance costs to small businesses have been so high that it has dampened growth in Europe’s digital economy (large corporations can cope because they have the resources — Microsoft has 1600 engineers working on GDPR compliance) (GDPR After One Year: Costs and Unintended Consequences, truthonthemarket.com, 31st May 2019).

The most recent is EU Copyright Directive 2019 (Articles 11 and 13). This was given its final approval in the EU Parliament in April 2019 (possibly mistakenly, as MEP’s then claimed that they didn’t know what they were voting for, ironically). The Directive is ambiguous and intrusive, giving news companies the right to charge for links to their articles, and the right to ban links altogether. It is a fundamental reworking of how copyright works on the Internet (see article by Cory Doctorow in www.eff.org March 19th 2019 for a detailed description).

Interestingly, very few EU nations actually wanted this change to copyright law, but as we have seen, the EU Commission proposes the law and the EU Parliament endorses it. In Sweden, for example, the legislation was opposed by the ruling government and by the opposition, and by the general public. But it is now EU law and the Swedes will have to live with it like everybody else. This illustrates why “emergence” is a genuine problem. It is not simply the case that each nation has to abide by a majority decision — rather, every nation has to live with a decision by the EU Commission which is a higher authority than the nation state.

10. Surreptitiousness.

Much is made of dishonest campaign slogans by Leave (“False claims on the side of a bus”) but we don’t hear so much about the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the EU project. From its inception, it was clear to the EU’s architects that erosion of national sovereignty would be deeply unpopular in most European states, and so the long slow process of obfuscation and secrecy was designed to hide the EU’s true purpose. Jean Claude Juncker, who is something of a comic-book villain in the British media, is an ideal representative of this tendency. Time after time he has made it explicit that “when it becomes serious, you have to know how to lie” (Gavin Hewitt, “The Real Jean-Claude Juncker, BBC, 15th July 2014).

Senior EU politicians have long understood that most European citizens have better things to do than fret over the complexities of constitutional change. The preferred modus operandi has always been a steady drip-drip of intrusion and infiltration rather than a headlong rush. Juncker summed it up best: “We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no-one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” (Nick Timothy, Conservative Home, 8th March 2016).

There we have it in a nutshell. Not only the stealth, but the “interlock”. The secrecy, the misrepresentation of goals, the wilful ignoring of a democratic mandate, the illegitimacy of the constitutional changes, the self-appointed primacy, and the enactment of unhelpful directives; they are carefully interwoven until the day comes when “there is no turning back.” The idea that you can stay and change any of this is comically naive. Sometimes, when confounded by complexity, the boldest solution is the only workable one, and in this case voters decided to cut the knot. Remarkably, during the three-year national conversation about Brexit which has taken place, very few hard-line Remain voices have addressed the factors summarised above. And all the while the click click click of the EU ratchet has travelled smoothly onwards.

Waiting lists fell, yet staff and the public were unhappy with the NHS under Tony Blair. Why did his legacy go so horribly wrong?

In what state of health did Tony Blair leave the National Health Service?

Doctors and nurses were united in fury while voters tell pollsters that they think the service is worse than it was and they expect it to get worse still. For the first time ever, a majority of the population thought the NHS would be safer in Conservative hands. How did this happen?

The Labour government began well with a 10 year national strategy agreed after lengthy consultation with NHS staff led by Tony Blair himself. The Wanless report uncovered the depth of need after decades of funding that almost always fell below real NHS inflation rates. The public agreed money was needed; national insurance rates were raised to pay for it. NHS spending trebled by 2008 to £94bn, easily reaching the European Union average, as promised. Ever since Attlee cut back its budget before it was even launched, the NHS has been pinched for funds. It certainly never enjoyed such a time of plenty.

Where has the money gone? Opposition parties will keep up that chant until the next election, accusing Labour of giving poor value for the cash spent. But a fair reckoning requires some memory of what the NHS was like in previous under-funded decades. Every winter there was an NHS crisis. Sometimes it was flu that had elderly patients overflowing on to trolleys in hospital corridors. But always by February and March it was money running out that caused theatre and ward closures, with surgeons left to twiddle their thumbs while waiting lists spiked up until the new financial year.

Look back down memory lane at some of the headlines before Mr Blair came to power: “400 critically ill children turned away from intensive care units in the past three months due to a chronic shortage of beds and nurses” (Mirror, 21 January 1997). “1 in 7 operations cancelled due to cutbacks” (Mirror, 18 November 1996). “Chaos mounts as wards turn away the sick” (News of the World, 28 January 1996), ”Doctors reveal winter chaos in NHS” (Independent, 10 January 1997). Pictures of patients on trolleys abound among the old cuttings.

Better care

Even allowing for the usual media exaggeration, few objective NHS watchers would deny how much improvement there has been since then. In 1997, 283 866 people had waited 6 months or more for operations.1 By last March, ministers announced there were only 199. Back in 1997 few would have believed Tony Blair had he promised to cut waiting times to its present average of 6.6 weeks, (which does, of course, hide wild variations).

In 2003 when the target was set, 75% of patients were seen within four hours in accident and emergency departments; last year it was 98.5%. Even allowing for statistical fiddling, nobody doubts refurbished accident and emergency departments were better. There were 20,000 more consultants and general practitioners, 70,000 more nurses, 118 new hospitals, and 188 new general practice clinics. As ever, demand rose too: there were 3% more users a year and 75% more emergency ambulance calls.

All those are NHS in-puts—but what of real health outcomes? Over 10 years life expectancy rose by 2 years, to 81.2 for women and 76.9 for men—but the hard truth is that the life expectancy graph has been on a similar steady gradient upwards for a long time and the rise may have happened anyway.

Every government vows it will shift priorities towards prevention and public health. Like every other leader, Blair failed to do that significantly, although the smoking ban helped. Every government promises to redirect resources into community services where 90% of treatment happens, but like every government, Blair’s failed to stop hospitals siphoning off the lion’s share. Mental health had early extra money, but along with all community, maternity, and health visiting services, it suffered badly in the latest sharp spending squeeze.

Poor decisions

Nevertheless, the Blair record is good, so why were NHS staff and voters convinced everything was worse? 1997 to 2007 was a decade of turmoil, with zigzag reforms dictated from the top, only to be countermanded again from the top. The history of his “reforms” hardly bears repeating. First he dismantled general practice fundholding and some aspects of the Tory internal market. He set up primary care groups, remade them into primary care trusts, and then merged them again into half the number. Demolished regional health authorities were resurrected as 28 strategic health authorities and then merged again back into the original 10 regions. The public health director for the south west region provided one graphic example of what happened on the ground in this breathless deckchair shuffling. He held the same job since 1994, but had to reapply for it seven times because of reorganisations.

With each turn of the screw, Tony Blair became more convinced that only a fiercely competitive market could jolt the NHS into better productivity. He castigated Bevan’s “monolithic” state driven model and trusted the magic of Adam Smith’s “hidden hand” to drive greater efficiency. But he made a fundamental error by putting the power in the hands of the providers and not the purchasers. He built up mighty foundation hospitals and independent treatment centres first, neglecting weak and feeble primary care trusts without the managerial clout to power his great market machine. Instead, the hospitals sucked money out of the pockets of the primary care trusts’ inexperienced finance directors.

Making a market caused rows with his own party, but all this organisational stuff was of zero interest to patients. They woke up to the change only when the market began to bite in painful ways. The market demanded no deficits, no more collaborative loans between hospitals that were now supposed to compete, so in one breakneck year long-standing debt had to be tortured out of the system. This the public did suddenly notice.

How can there be deficits with so much money sloshing around the NHS? The debt squeeze accelerated “reconfigurations” that meant some 60 local hospitals would close or lose their accident and emergency or maternity services. Many of these closures had been due for years and this was just the inefficiency the market was designed to throttle, but here was the gift a resurgent Conservative opposition needed. Save Our Hospital campaigns sprang up everywhere, even sometimes where there was no threat.

Just as the deficit squeeze started to freeze posts and even to cut some jobs, news of the accidental overpayment of consultants and general practitioners reached public ears. True, there had been a shortage of doctors in 1997 and they needed a good increase, but the bungled contracts looked like money out of control. Add in the private developers (reputed to be friends of the Blairs) renting the purchased hospitals back to the NHS at sometimes triple market rental values. Add in the saga of the mighty Connecting for Health information technology system, which over-ran in cost and time and failed to deliver in ways that were well-predicted by all the experts. Add that to the growing outbreaks of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile, and the public decided the NHS was in meltdown.

However often Tony Blair and his health ministers recite their litany of successes and improvements, public opinion heads downwards. Voters asked about the NHS said it was a disaster. Few can remember a decade ago to make useful comparisons: no one waiting three months for a hip operation now will remember waiting 18 months back then. Voters don’t do gratitude.

The press, as ever 75% right wing, sense an issue to put the wind in the Tories’ sails. Bad NHS stories are a staple diet of the media second only to crime—but bad hospital stories are now multiplying exponentially. With 1.3 million NHS staff each grumbling to scores of family and friends, alienating them is politically lethal too.

Blair came to power famously promising to save the NHS. He didn’t fail in all areas but he certainly didn’t succeed either.

I think the definition of what it truly means to be a strong, independent woman has changed. Not every woman has her own apartment, several lovers or a high-powered job. I used to compare myself to the 4 female characters in Sex & the City and think I needed to be like them to be considered a SIW

I gave my blog the title as a sarcastic dig to those that believe to be a SIW, one must be bossy, aggressive, a radical feminist, misandrist and devoid of emotion. I truly think that some people see strong women as being deceitful, manipulative and prepared to stab anyone in the back to get what they want.

This couldn’t be further from the truth for the majority of us.

Firstly, a little analysis of myself;

I’m emotionally and mentally strong but that doesn’t make me cold hearted. In fact I’m the opposite. I will bend over backwards for people. I fall in love fairly easily and get hurt frequently. However, I can compartmentalise and carry on with my life and career, despite the heart break.

I hate to ask for help because, not only am I fiercely independent but, I have been let down so many times that I have learnt not to rely on anyone.

So I decided to put together some thoughts on what it means to be a Strong Independent Women.

Firstly, strong, independent women have their careers always at the forefront of their lives. Working hard is something everyone should do, regardless of age, gender or other factors, whether it’s pulling a 12 hour shift at McDonalds or working your arse off in a high profile corporate role. We always work hard, keep our eyes to the future, and strive to work on our careers.

One of the most important things we always do is handle our own situations, good or bad. Speaking for yourself is something everyone should be doing anyway, but we never have trouble making our voices heard and ensuring any decision involving us directly is a reflection on our choices. We handle our own job worries and roommate problems and flat tyres. It’s not that it’s bad to rely on people; but to have the knowledge that you can handle the situation is powerful in itself.

We have the ability to shrug off mistakes like water off a ducks back and to learn from bad choices. We don’t complain, or rally against a world that has bitten us on the arse. We let ourselves make these mistakes and learn from them. We see these negative scenarios as a learning process and a way in which you can grow and become better and stronger.

Haters seem to be everywhere these days on social media. Anonymous Internet users can often be found spouting vitriol at everyone with a different opinion. We can often find ourselves the target of these attacks, but we don’t rise to it or give it the time or oxygen it requires to survive. It also goes without saying that we are not trolls either. Trolling is harmful, abusive, and utterly repugnant. All it serves as is the symbol of the emptiness of a person’s life that they need to fill it with anger and resentment. We never rise to haters’ bait. We’re usually too busy living the life we want to lead to care or take notice anyway.

We never stop learning or trying to better our own sense of knowledge about the world or subjects. It’s a sad thing when people stop being interested in the world around them, or decide to remain set in their ways and not learn or explore any new point of view or topic or challenge themselves.

There’s something to be said for the virtue of patience. We practice patience and restraint every day. We never act on the first impulse that comes our way. We always wait and think things through. We’re always in control of our lives; as much as possible anyway, and do the things that will truly make us happy.

One of the fundamental things that we do not do is let other people hold sway over our confidence and self-esteem. Your body is just fine the way it is, and the projections of perfection that the media brings about are harmful. We do not let ourselves become affected, even if secretly we wish we had better legs or bigger boobs. We carry our heads high and no matter our shape, size, skin color, gender identity or form of self-expression, we own ourselves. The things that make us stand out become our greatest assets. We should never, ever let ourselves feel bad about being ourselves.

We don’t neglect our physiological needs and health. The fact is that your body needs sleep, needs water and food, and needs to unwind and relax. Neglecting these isn’t just stupid; it’s reckless, silly, and not something that we do. We try to get plenty of sleep; aside from being a biological imperative, it helps your mental health, concentration, healing factor, and makes your skin look amazing. We try to drink plenty of water in order to stay hydrated and healthy, and eat as much and as healthily as possible without getting hung up on calories.

Having unrealistic expectations is one of the quickest ways to being unhappy. Fortunately, if you’re a strong, independent women, that’s not an issue as we have our expectations in check and are realistically optimistic about the future and what it’ll bring. There is a fine line between wishful thinking and thinking that some outlandish event or scenario will actually occur. Let’s face it, everyone has had a daydream fantasy of winning the lottery and retiring somewhere beautiful. We accept and enjoy these brief fantasies but never let them truly affect our lives. We stay grounded and realistic, while working towards our own dreams and goals.

The law of attraction usually means that strong, independent women should flock with other strong, independent women and men. However, sometimes we find ourselves with people who are dissatisfied, angry, or just generally toxic. If you can’t work through things with your friends, then it’s time to cut ties and let them go. We should never let the toxic actions of another person affect us, whether they’re a coworker, close friend or romantic partner. Hanging around in a toxic friendship or relationship is never a good thing.

Most people are actively involved or interested in having or maintaining a romantic relationship. Often we date until we find a partner worth investing our time, energy and effort into. We don’t entertain a partner who belittles us, disrespects us, or attempts to control every aspect of the relationship. We don’t have enough time to be dealing with the kind of people who try to confine our lives or control them in any way, shape or form. Personally, the majority of men I’ve become involved with have tried to do just that or have been intimidated by my independence and lack of neediness.

Finally, strong, independent women rarely lose control of our lives. Control is, at least according to selected philosophers, an illusion created by mankind to stop us freaking out and destroying society. However, it serves an important purpose, and knowing that you are in control of your choices, decisions, and lifestyle is a massive boost to your self-esteem and confidence. Self-control is one of life’s greatest virtues and assets. Making sure you get enough sleep so that you’re not late for work is being strong. Making sure you avoid incriminating Facebook photos where any potential employer could see them is being strong. Treating yourself to a movie or drinks after work or a great meal is being independent. Strong, independent women carve out their own lives and their own paths; just how it should be.

This is an unusual one for me but, being passionate about animal welfare I decided to do some research.

I’m a meat eater. Not often but I do. Because I’m also an animal lover, I do feel a bit of a hypocrite but I like meat. I’ve tried meat alternatives and soya mince is good but anything else I’ve tried is, in my humble opinion, like eating cardboard.

So I made a decision to eat less meat but the meat I do eat has to be responsibly produced. As a country girl, I’ve often bought butchered lamb and beef directly from my neighbour who keeps free range animals. I always kept free range chickens, ducks and geese as pets and for eggs only. Now I live in the city, it’s slightly more difficult but I persevere. If I can’t get free range, I go without. Simple really. I love vegetables so I’m happy to eat vegetarian meals.

I have a friend who used to be my horses vet. A lovely man, who is a true animal lover, not just a mercenary vet like some are. Below is what he told me about halal and kosher slaughter. This is no made up rubbish for the purpose of spreading propaganda. This is from someone with no agenda who knows what he’s talking about.

Why are halal and kosher inhumane? Because of the anatomy of the arteries supplying the brain with blood. Most animals receive the bulk of circulation to the brain via the internal and external carotid arteries. This is what you cut if you slit an animal’s throat properly.

Cattle have an additional artery supplying the brain called the vertebral artery (it’s also present in sheep and goats, but doesn’t directly supply the brain). As the name suggests, this travels in a small hole in the wings of the cervical vertebrae. It’s protected by bone.. it’s impossible to cut with a slaughterman’s knife. There arteries continue to supply blood to the brain after the animal’s throat is cut.What does this mean in practice?

A sheep will become insensible 2 to 14 seconds after the carotid arteries are cut. Even without stunning that’s 2 to 14 seconds of quite considerable suffering and fear.

Consider the humble cow with her vertebral arteries. With a good cutting technique, a cow will become insensible after 17 to 85 seconds.. some remain sensible for 385 seconds. Now sit there and count out 17 seconds… what about 85 seconds… now try 385 seconds.We didn’t just make this shit up to insult religious sensibilities.

This is tested, tried, corroborated, scientific evidence which has been available for decades yet no legislation has been brought in to protect animal welfare at perhaps the most horrific time of the meat production process.

This needs to be stopped

Top vet: Stop ‘cruel’ slaughter for kosher and halal meat

http://www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › Home News

Britain’s top vet has called for the religious slaughter of animals to be banned if more … Mr Blackwell said the way halal and kosher meat is … Report Comment.

3. Top vet calls for reform of kosher and halal slaughter …

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/06/reform-of-kosher-and…

Top vet calls for reform of kosher and halal slaughter practices

4. Halal and kosher slaughter – GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter

Halal and kosher slaughter … You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is being religiously slaughtered for halal or kosher meat.

5. Why are Halal and Kosher slaughter controversial in Europe?

https://muslimvillage.com/2018/09/02/130631/halal-kosher-slaughter…

The UK has such as exemption in place for both halal and kosher … a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary … Its latest report into the halal …

6. Halal and kosher meat ending up in British food chain …

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5398031/Halal-kosher-meat…

Britons are unknowingly eating Halal meat that is being sold without a label, says top vet. Rise in the number of sheep and poultry being killed without being stunned …

7. Unsuspecting Britons ‘eating halal and kosher meat’ in …

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/919929/Halal-kosher-meat-ready…

16/02/2018 · MILLIONS of people could be eating Halal and kosher meat … Unsuspecting Britons ‘eating halal and kosher meat’ in READY MEALS … Writing for the Vet Journal ……….

What is ‘Survivors Guilt’ and how does it affect us?

In July I lost my 40 year old brother to cancer. He’d battled so bravely for 3 years but deep down I knew that ‘that day’ would come. I was calm, too calm looking back but I’m emotionally strong and was convinced I could cope. Yes, I knew I’d be sad, heart broken even but that I’d get through it. I’m used to being the strong one, so….

I spoke at his funeral. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I’m used to speaking in front of people but this, oh my goodness. I froze and almost didn’t manage but some how I did it!

After the funeral I had this overwhelming urge to run. I needed to be back in my flat, alone. I felt vulnerable and scared but I have no idea why.

Some days were fine. Some weren’t. Little things would trigger an unimaginable pain, an all consuming feeling of grief and disbelief at the very real notion that I would never see Damion again. Ever!

One particular episode, I was literally insane with grief. I was in self destruct mode. I wanted everyone that I care about to hate me, to see how completely unworthy I was of still being alive. You see, Damion had everything to live for; a beautiful wife, 3 beautiful little girls, a beautiful home and most importantly of all he was a good hearted and decent human being. I truly believed everyone in my family wished it had been me instead. I said some wicked and very insane things to people I love and care about. To be perfectly honest, I would have swapped places with him in a heartbeat.

I decided it was time to stop being stubborn, stop being the “I don’t need anyone” type and seek some help. So I did and this is what I learned:

Survivor’s guilt can be a serious threat to mental health, and it is frequently seen to be a precursor to more common mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and addiction. Okay, so far, that’s not rocket science. I knew that.

A lot of people who suffer from survivor’s guilt see letting go of the feeling of responsibility as being dishonorable or lying to themselves – this is not true. This is not a means of deflecting blame, but simply a means of coming to terms with the situation at hand and rationally assigning responsibility. Easier said than done!

I have questions:

Guilt is a horrible feeling to have; there is no doubt about that. However, is it true that those suffering from survivor’s guilt are using this guilt as a coping mechanism so that they don’t have to deal with the true emotions that they have buried deep down in their minds?

Are we unintentionally finding that dealing with the guilt is easier than accepting the loss that we have experienced and coming to terms with the sadness that comes with it?

How do we learn to recognise that are people that are happy we’re still alive?

If we were to delve into the deeper psychology behind survivor’s guilt (and guilt in general), I think we would find substantial evidence that points toward one thing – it is selfish. Now this is not an attempt to make anyone feel bad about their guilt but instead an attempt to help us realise that guilt is simply primarily about ourselves. What about the people in our lives?

There is at least one person that is happy that we are still here.

There are people in our lives that depend on us, that love us. We need to live for them.

The negative repercussions of survivor’s guilt; the anxiety, depression, addiction, and other mental issues that it can lead to, can destroy our lives and also the lives of those around us. Seeking out help, whether professionally like I did or by talking to a trusted friend, does not mean that we are trying to absolve ourselves of our self-imposed burdens. First and foremost, it simply means that we are trying to regain control of our lives for the sake of our mental health and the betterment of the lives of friends, family, and loved ones.

I’m truly ashamed of the way I behaved a couple of weeks ago. I’ve apologised to everyone and I’m so fortunate that they get it! They know me and they know the things I said were completely out of character. I don’t need to feel ashamed but I still do and I’m working on that.

My last word is;

If you are a survivor, then let your life have enough meaning for yourself and for those who didn’t make it.

About 18 months ago, I lost my best friend. She didn’t die and we haven’t betrayed each other. I lost her due to ‘life’.

‘Break-up’ is a term generally reserved to describe the dissolution of a romantic relationship but friendship is a relationship of sorts so the pain can be just the same. The only thing, really, that distinguishes a lover from a friend is sex. Everything else – loyalty, support, humour and companionship – exists in both. When you break-up with a lover, the part you cry over is rarely the sex. It’s the partnership you miss. 

Do we take time to celebrate our female friendships as we do our romantic relationships?

If you had told Sarah and I, a decade ago, that we would eventually wither, we would have laughed. It was unthinkable. Our ‘boyfriends’ were mutual friends and we clicked instantly. Her dad said “You two are going to be friends.”

He was right. We humans tend to chose our friends much the same way as our spouses – plucked from a sea of other options; the one we like most. Sarah and I were each others’ chosen humans.

After a few years both boyfriends fell away, but Sarah and I were still close, vetting each other’s new potential partners and having a good old rant as the nerve of some men.

As we meandered through our thirties, thick as thieves, through scary jobs and grotty flats; sick pets and milestone birthdays; mad flings and shoestring travels, Sarah and I collected all manner of things. Some you can stick on a mantlepiece – the cards, the photos, the funny fridge magnets – and most you can’t: the in-jokes, the tears, the tiny secrets and confessions.

Our friendship was never something we took for granted. We understood it was rare and we nurtured it. I knew exactly what to say when she was sad, nervous, confused or irrational – lines from a script we’d finessed over time. She knew when I was about to do something stupid or clever even before I did, and would be ready with flowers to console or congratulate as necessary. I used to feel sorry for anyone who didn’t have a ‘Sarah’.

Our plan was to live our lives, being there for each other, no matter what man came or went then we’d eke out the rest of our days in matching rocking chairs, wheelchair racing through the corridors of a fabulously expensive retirement home, cackling and tearing through wine until we popped our clogs.

In the same year that Sarah met the man of her dreams, I moved around with work from the Middle East to Europe and finally back home to Nottingham. While she was busy putting down roots, I was hopping from country to country. Both of us were half-mad with glee, different though our lives had become, and our was friendship was as strong as ever.

Until…..

There were birthday cards that got lost in the post, missed calls left unreturned, plans cancelled in ever increasing frequency. I didn’t want to attribute it to her boyfriend, who I liked very much, because surely she was better than that? We’d both had boyfriends in the past without this happening.

When he moved in, I was the first friend she phoned. I whooped, I rejoiced with her, then I hung up the phone, sank into the sofa and cried.

Several months later came the final blow. My younger brother, Damion, who’d been fighting a rare form of cancer for three years, suddenly declined and died at the age of 40 and it knocked me sideways.

I didn’t think I needed to tell her myself because our mutual friends were posting all over Facebook, but she was put out that I didn’t call her.

We’ve had a few awkward phone conversations since but they are getting fewer with longer intervals between calls.

At first, as can often be case with break ups, the severance was a relief. Over time, my feelings moved back and forth along that well-worn spectrum of sadness and indifference. I still have the framed photos of us but gifts and silly notes have been put in the box with my old journals, tatty gig tickets and the Order of Service from Damion’s funeral.

I haven’t deleted her from Instagram, Facebook, or her number from my phone. I bid farewell to more than a decade of jokes only we were in on; and to a very niche genre of music that will forever trigger laughter wherever we might we hear it – only now we’ll be laughing separately.

The dent she has left on my everyday life is palpable, but I’ve become used to it. The dent we left on each others’ past is indelible. Flicking through the photo albums that chart most of my adulthood, once a cheering thing to do on a rainy day, will always sit a little heavy on me now. She’s in so many of them. Sarah will forever be the person who threw my 40th birthday, and I hers. There’s no erasing her from photos of my parties, nor I from hers – unless of course there’s a way to airbrush s out.

I do wonder whether our paths will ever cross in the future, and what we would say to each other. As for the present, I have good friends around me, and a happy life. Do I miss Sarah? Yes. Could anyone replace her? No. For a while, when we were different people, doing different things in a different decade – it was perfect. I suspect a time will come when I look back on it with nothing but fondness.

I genuinely try to be a good person.

I’m honest, well, most of the time. I’m pretty much ‘what you see, is what you get’ and sometimes I’m too real for some people. Is that their problem or mine?

Recently, I was subjected to an online troll. A woman, that I’ve interacted with on social media and who I thought was nice, accused me of being fake. Her words were; “you’re not fooling anyone with your pretend kindness. You’re a fake and an ugly one too”!

I was shocked, hurt and baffled. It came completely out of the blue. I avoided social media for some time while I licked my wounds.

Years ago, I surrounded myself with people who I thought I needed to be friends with, minor celebrities and pretentious ones at that. Now, there are no fake people in my life. I simply don’t have time for it, nor the drama that seems to follow them. Drama seems to be prerequisite to being ‘the big I am’.

I’m very analytical so, after giving the trolling some thought, it appears, reading between the lines, some women see me as a threat!

Now that is bonkers! Never have I considered myself a threat to another woman. I admire other women for their talent, their career success, their wonderful personalities and sometimes their looks.

What am I a threat to?

I’m nothing special. I’m honest, have a good sense of humour, work hard and don’t look too bad for 52. Oh that sounds old! Eeeek!

But seriously, if I’m a threat to another woman then she must be insecure. I can’t think of any other explanation and I really can’t waste too much time worrying about it!

So, in conclusion, for the sake of my mental health, trolls will be blocked and nasty messages will be deleted without a second thought! I urge anybody receiving vitriolic messages to do the same.

I remember a time, not long ago

Needing to leave you, not wanting to go

Brother and sister, friends, together always.

Parties and Spurs games, – oh those were the days.

I remember, together, you as a teen

The fighting and arguing and all in between

The laughing and joking till tears filled our eyes.

The cheering and shouting, oh how time flies

I remember those times each day I wake

Not understanding who decides who to take

A husband, a father a good man to all.

I think about this as I stare at the wall

I remember your smile and the faces you’d pull

Wine and champagne, my memories are full

Sitting and talking well into the night

Together, your illness, we vowed to fight.

I remember them saying the treatment went well

I smiled but secretly in my own private hell

Kissing you goodbye I went on my way

I am fine you said,  no need to stay.

I remember that night in July

When I heard and tried not to cry

That phone call we’ve all come to fear

I know I’ll remember those words for years.

I remember you brother always so strong

I thought we could help you, I guess I was wrong.

I know I haven’t written for some time but my heart hasn’t been in it. My younger brother has been battling a rare cancer for three years but on Sunday 7th July he lost the battle so this, Damion, is for you.

How do I feel? Well, to be honest I’m not sure. I think I’m ok but I’m one of those that analyses how I feel and why, so I think the reason I’m ok is for several reasons.

Three years ago I was upset and angry at the injustice of my 37 year old brother, husband to a beautiful wife, father of two gorgeous little girls, being diagnosed with cancer. The ongoing surgeries and treatments have been so hard for Damion but he’s faced each trial with a positivity and strength I never knew he had. He gave me the strength not to fall apart. Ironic isn’t it?

We’ve all hoped for a miracle cure but deep down we all knew that Damion wouldn’t live to the ripe old age most of us hope to.

A month ago Damion was struggling to fight off pneumonia. He decided, following discussions with his wife and doctors that hospice care would be for the best. His body was beginning to give up and he needed more medical care than he could receive at home. That day was when I fell apart. That was the day, it hit me! My brother was going to die and oh boy was I angry at the world.

I was lucky enough to spend time with my little brother over the last month and just as he was at peace with everything, so I became at peace.

I have some amazing memories of times we spent together, from going to watch our beloved Spurs, to parties, to sitting up drinking red wine or champagne and talking crap into the early hours. I can’t believe I’m never going to get drunk with you again.

You have fought this cruel disease with such strength, dignity and positivity and you have been an inspiration to me and many others.

I love you and I’ll miss you so much little brother, more than I can say. I’m thankful that you are at peace.

I lied. I’m not ok. I’m devastated!

Sleep tight Damion

Dedicated to Damion Burbank

8th May 1979 to 7th July 2019

Husband, father, son, brother, uncle, friend.

Do you believe?

So your relationship has got to that irreparable stage and you decide to part or one of you has cheated and forgiveness is out of the question. Whatever the reason or who broke up with who, break ups are invariably difficult.

Most of us have had those break-ups that make us think we’ll never love again, or never want to love again. We all get over break-ups differently. Some of us wallow in self pity, looking for the solution at the bottom of a bottle or watching sad movies, listening to sad songs etc. Some focus on something else like work, going out with friends, retail therapy or even going on a date with someone new.

There are some us that feel the need to reinvent ourselves by getting a makeover; new wardrobe, new hairstyle, joining a gym or even a new job or home. Is this a form of running away? Are we running away from the reminders or ourselves? Are we blaming ourselves for the break-up? Do we think there’s something wrong with us? Have we let ourselves go so feel the need to rethink our appearance? This could be to make ourselves feel good or maybe, to show your ex what they’re missing.

However you do it, there often needs to be a grieving period. Yes, grieving. You have possibly lost the love of your life and sometimes it’s actually harder to grieve the death of a relationship than the death of an actual person.

Harsh? Yes, but allow me to explain.

When someone we love dies, we grieve and it’s hard but we learn to adapt and live life without them and somehow accept that we’ll never see them again, never hold them or kiss them again. When we break up with someone we still love, they are still walking around and there’s always the possibility we’ll see them again. There’s always that little voice saying you might get another chance, it messes with your mind and I believe this is the closest a lot of us get to going a bit crazy.

Obviously, we all take varying amounts of time to heal and to feel like ourselves again. We think we’ll never be happy again.

But we will. Deep down we know we will.

We just have to believe.