The Dutch government is at a bit of a crossroads at the moment. I use the metaphor deliberately.

The navigation system in my car warns me of traffic congestion ahead and plans an alternative route, often adding distance and time to my journey. When it is a route I often use, I take on board the traffic bulletins issued on the radio and use my knowledge of the various routes available to me to decide if I want to deviate from my normal route or not. Quite often I decide not to, and I find that it is quite possible to follow my original course without undue delays.

In July, the government issued its white paper on an emergency bill to enshrine anti-corona measures into (temporary) law. Nearly three months later – a delay partly caused by the parliamentary summer recess – the bill has been passed by the lower house and is awaiting its introduction in the upper house. The second chamber seems at first sight in no hurry to rush this onto the agenda, but I am beginning to think that there may well be wisdom in this.

An urgent letter signed by around 1.000 of the 75.000 Dutch GPs urges the government to reconsider the whole question of emergency powers. They do so based on a critical stance towards the measures already in use, but their argument against putting them into law are compelling.

When you consider that the government were considering these powers in months 3 and 4 of the pandemic, and we are now 3 or 4 months further, there is certainly cause to wonder if the necessity for emergency powers – as set out in the bill – has not changed a little in the meantime.

It is one thing to urge people to observe social distancing and the other measures set out in the current official advice, and leading by example; it is another to wrap the package in an emergency powers act in an attempt to mandate certain measures.

Such a bill should really only allow a government to deviate from economic plans, for example, and then only with the support of parliament. That kind of framework can be necessary inasmuch as current legislation doesn’t allow for it.

The letter from those GPs is also somewhat dated, to be honest. It was not written in the last week or so, which has seen rates of infection rising significantly again. It also mentioned that the highest mortality was among 80-plussers, as if that group were expendable. An unfortunate mix of information entirely. It also ignores the long-term effects on patients that have recovered from Covid-19. Some have found that their daily lives have been restricted by chronic tiredness and breathing pronlems.

It is a pandemic we are talking about. The Netherlands is not an island, and the struggle to contain corona is a worldwide effort. It is not only about shielding the Dutch health care system from undue strain, although that is important too. It is not about comparing numbers with ebola or the flu either.

Two recent events provide graphic examples of why we need common sense measures. The first I wrote about in my previous post – the football gathering in Tilburg which seems to be resulting in a sharp increase in positive test results. The other is the news that President Trump himself has Covid-19, partly, it would seem, as a result of not taking measures like social distancing seriously enough himself. Just look at the pictures of the presentation of the candidate High Court judge in the Rose Garden at the White House. The seats were not spaced according to distancing guidelines! We also read that Trump went on a couple of plane trips and had undistanced meetings with advisors even after having being in contact with people subsequently tested and found positive.

We need the measures based on distancing and masks, I am convinced of that. Restricting the size of gatherings and reducing licensing hours to curtail alcohol-influenced breaches of these common-sense rules are prudent. The should not be based solely on science, where interpretation is not always consistent. We have to consider this country in the context of Europe and the rest of the world too. We do not say to those above a certain age: you were going to go sometime and corona will possibly just shorten that wait.

Legal powers, however, need to be invoked with great restraint. “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”

In some ways, I’m almost grateful to the Mayor of Tilburg, less than 20 miles from where I live, for his recent error in judgement. He had given permission for the local football club to hold a gathering for fans wanting to watch their first European competition match in 15 years. There is an open space next to the stadium and hundreds of fans came along to encourage their team on to what turned out to be a 0-4 defeat at the hands of Rangers FC. This was some 9 days ago now.

Even though the distancing rules had been agreed and the crowd was warned in announcements over the P.A. system, there was shouting and singing and bunching up, and even a few brawls later on. Ultimately riot police had to break up the event and get people to go home.

There was the inevitable political hand-wringing and finger-pointing following that chaotic evening. The mayor has said that he would not make the same choice again if such a request for a permit were made again.

Today we have read that there is a significant spike in the positive corona test results specifically in Tilburg. This evidence is circumstantial but it is exceedingly likely that there is a link between that football gathering and the increase in the number of corona sufferers now. The timeline fits perfectly.

To my mind, if anyone still needed proof that measures like social distancing are necessary, this local incident provides just that. Fortunately it is hitting the national news and I really hope that people take note!

Unfortunately, contact-tracing here is more or less on the back burner. I would love to know how many of the new corona victims were actually at that football evening, and how many caught the infection from someone else who did go.

In English, the term is ‘celebrity’; in Dutch, ‘well-known Dutchman’ (bekende Nederlander, or BNer). I am more interested in what qualifies someone to be classed in that category. The media unofficially christen such people, but it seems to hinge on the number of followers a person has on their Facebook or Instagram accounts.

At least 3 such Dutch celebrities are among those supporting a tag on Instagram which roughly translates as I am not taking part any more, referring to the measures the Dutch government has set out over the last six months to try and combat the corona virus.

The protest questions the point of non-medical face masks – only really in use in public transport in the Netherlands, the 1,5 meter rule, and even how mortal a corona infection really is.

One doctor, in reply, has invited them to come and take a look round his Intensive Care Unit. ‘Staff are moving heaven and earth for patients that do still want to take part!’

These particular celebrities work in the entertainment industry – particularly hard-hit by the rules prohibiting concerts and festivals. I am not aware that any of them are qualified in medicine or the study of infections.

Promoting the abandonment of the only common sense measures we have really makes me angry. Someone else recently in a tv interview compared the present pandemic to the Aids crisis which started nearly 40 years ago. “Were we told not to have sexual intercourse anymore?”, they asked?

Well no, but we were advised not to have unprotected sex with people we didn’t know. A flu-like virus spreads from person to person through close contact. Face masks (non-surgical ones) and distancing do not guarantee no spreading of such a disease, but it cuts the risk down enormously.

Until there is a medical means of protecting ourselves, there are no other commonly accepted measures that work. Scrapping them would leave large numbers of vulnerable people open to infection and hospitals swamped with patients again.

The Dutch love to complain, but I seriously question the motives of so-called celebrities who think they are qualified to incite a revolt based on no medical qualifications whatsoever. Corona is still in its first year of global disruption. A vaccine, when it comes, will have been the fastest ever developed from scratch in the history of mankind. Hopefully it will become available to people all over the world, although how is still to be seen. With luck, within a year and a half of its emergence, corona will be beaten back by medical intervention.

Until then, I will wear a face mask whenever and wherever I am asked to, and will keep on practising social distancing. That includes unnecessary parties and gatherings. I want to keep myself out of the chain that passes on the virus or ends up catching it. However, we all have to do our bit until then.

Every once in a while there is some national event, often a state funeral or act of remembrance, where all the previous prime ministers or heads of state sill living are present. Watching on television it is interesting to see them gathered in one place, and one wonders what conversations might have taken place behind the scenes before or after the event.

It is also a convention that outgoing leaders who have retired from politics refrain from public comment on the actions of their successors; a convention mind, not by any means a rule.

In the UK, Boris Johnson’s predecessor still holds a seat in the House of Commons and is well within her rights to join in the debate in the chamber.

Today, however, something very unique in politics took place which I at least cannot remember ever happening before in the UK, and I’m not sure it has happened in the Netherlands either for that matter.

At the moment there are 5 former UK Prime Ministers ( 3 Conservative and 2 Labour) still living, and over the last few days, all of them have spoken out about Mr Johnson’s proposed bill to allow parliament to modify certain clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU retrospectively. All of them expressed misgivings, some indeed went a lot further in criticising the proposals.

David Cameron, the man responsible for actually having the Brexit referendum take place, and probably the man with more reason than most to keep out of the limelight, was restrained in his comments, but like his colleague former PMs, he did ring the alarm bell.

As Gordon Brown put it, it may be that this is a negotiating tactic (in respect of the trade agreement with the EU from 2021) and that Boris might be hoping that a figure like Angela Merkel might intervene to help the negotiations along.

Personally, I don’t see it. Why would Mrs Merkel want to burn her fingers on an issue where all the former holders of the office of PM in the UK, several of which she has worked alongside, have criticised the current PM’s tactics?

I am old fashioned. I like to see a leader that comes over as genuinely sympathetic to the people of the country. Of course any leader has to take tough decisions at times, be ruthless even. Boris Johnson is a loose cannon however. He opens his mouth and ends up contradicting himself further down the line. His infamous ‘oven-ready’ deal with the EU turned out to be a bogus promise – there was nothing oven-ready about it. Now he has the gall to suggest the UK will welch on an international treaty if it suits his purpose further down the road.

This is the man that got stuck half way along a zip wire when carrying out a photo opportunity as Mayor of London. The sight of him just hanging there gleefully waving a Union flag in each hand just never leaves one’s mind.

This is the man who just before the Brexit campaign had written conflicting articles, one supporting continued membership of the EU and the other arguing for leaving. Nobody knew right up to the last minute which way he would jump.

This is the man I thought might become a little milder following his spell in intensive care when he suffered from Covid-19. One of the very few national leaders in the world with such a personal brush with corona, surely that would have made him think? I have seen no evidence of that.

Even without the shadows of his predecessors behind him, even I can see that threatening to set aside clauses in an international treaty is a foolish path to go down. Sooner or later Mr Johnson is going to meet his Waterloo, and his entry in the history books will not be quite what he had been hoping for.

I started this blog 5 years ago in December. You know how it is, you read an item of news which you don’t entirely agree with and want to air your own view. That’s why I started this blog; it’s a form of “yelling at the television”.

Hardly anybody reads what I have written, but then it was my own choice to remain anonymous. I have also not made any real effort to add metadata to my posts or clearly identify what I have written about.

I don’t use social media and I am not interested in making sure others hear me. I just want to record from time to time my own thoughts on what is happening at the time.

5 years on my situation has changed a little. I have retired from my work and will have a bit more time to review what I have written and order and categorise it. It’s a hobby at least – and keeps me off the streets! Now we are half way through the first year of headline-grabbing pandemic, one has got used to spending more time at home rather than seeking entertainment elsewhere. One post I will be writing very soon are my reflections on the corona period so far – not that I haven’t covered many aspects of it already in various posts.

I doubt my musings will ever enjoy a large audience. Nonetheless there is a desire in all of us to not leave this life totally unnoticed and unremembered. If anything I have written contributes to someone else’s understanding of certain issues and maybe influences their opinion, I will be more than happy. The irony is that I will never know!

Saturday evening 12th September 2020 saw the final concert in the BBC Proms series for this year. Due to corona measures, it was performed without an audience in the Royal Albert Hall, London.

The orchestra was pared back to around a fifth of its number, spaced out on an extended stage. A small contingent of the BBC Singers were spaced out in the stalls to provide at least some singing in the hall.

What follows are my thoughts on the concert as a whole and on some of the items in particular.

Given the challenge of such a large space and so few players and singers, the result was generally quite pleasing. It did play a little havoc with the tempi of certain items, but that is understandable. The conductor, the Fin Dalia Stasevska, tried valiantly to make the best of the circumstances, but did warrant the L plate jokingly included on the decorated railings behind her.

Only one instrument was completely at home in that giant space and that was the magnificent organ of course. In a surprise twist, Jerusalem was performed as a hymn with simply organ accompaniment to the BBC singers. As a church organist myself, I was delighted at this innovation. It worked for me, at least.

Two items had been commissioned by the BBC. What I fail to understand is why either of them were guaranteed a place in the programme. Solus by Andrea Tarrodi, an intended reflection on the intrusion of the corona virus into our lives, was really quite mediocre. I did not find it evocative at all, and even as an example of modern orchestral music, it failed abysmally.

Errollyn Wallen was commissioned to write a reworking of Jerusalem. For me, it was the low point in the whole programme. I apologise to Ms Wallen, but it was absolutely awful. The BBC stupidly included it on the same programme as the traditional version performed later on.

I got the impression that the soloist, Golda Schultz, who otherwise delighted us with her singing during the rest of the evening, was not entirely into the piece – to put it mildly. This piece should not have been included in this programme. It was a veiled political statement and the BBC should be disgusted with itself. We sat through it as a kind of penance to make up for the fact that Land of Hope and Glory, Jerusalem, Rule, Brittania and the National Anthem had not been removed from the programme.

The group of British Sea Songs included a couple of offerings recorded outside on location, but considering the unusual circumstances of this concert, that was not a problem.

In the programme notes we were informed that Anne Dudley had arranged the Elgar (Land of Hope and Glory) especially for the evening. The term ‘arranged’ was overdoing it. Essentially, the whole piece was performed in the way we know it. She may have done the orchestration, but there was no radical reworking of the piece to qualify it as a new arrangement.

As a stand-in concert fulfilling the role of the closing Promenade concert in these ‘corona times’, it was generally worth listening to. The offerings from The Marriage of Figaro (Mozart), A Little Night music (Sondheim) and Carousel (Rodgers & Hammerstein) were a delight. Surprisingly, Benjamin Britten’s arrangement of the National Anthem did not work as well as one might expect. I now appreciate the restrained first verse performed on other Last Nights by a full orchestra and chorus even more, even though I originally had my reservations when it was first introduced years ago. With such a small choir and reduced orchestra, that first verse didn’t quite make it, musically speaking, and the climax of the second verse didn’t either.

We are all used to traditional things sounding and looking different during the corona restrictions. This was a brave attempt to satisfy a need, even though some bad decisions had been allowed to make it through the selection. Most of the disappointment was thus caused by the planners of the concert, not the performers.

As I write this, I am watching the broadcast of the Last Night of the Proms. See my earlier posting to see the background to this.

Fortunately the BBC have managed to conjure up an ‘artistic decision’ which allows for the keeping of the traditional songs threatened with the axe.

Although I sympathise with those who find the unpleasant side of the UK’s colonial past showing through in the words, that in itself is not reason enough to silence their performance. Nobody is forced to listen to the Last Night; it dominates our lives even less than a statue of some historical figure with a questionable past.

At least I can now scrap my campaign calling for the closure of the Channel Tunnel. I do think it should be removed from maps though. If the UK wants to break away from Europe through Brexit, it will cause me great sorrow to be reminded of the historical links with the mainland of Europe by seeing the Channel Tunnel still live on.

For personal look at tonight’s concert, see my following post.

The UK Prime Minister has embarked on an interesting and risky course. In the 7^th month of the 11 month transition period following Brexit, he has announced plans for a Bill which would allow the UK to unilaterally alter terms agreed bilaterally with the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.

That agreement falls under International Law – at least that is what we are told. However, there isn’t really any such thing as International Law since there isn’t an umbrella body capable of enforcing it. The Security Council of the United Nations comes close, but as we know, one veto there is enough to block any sanctions. International Law is more widely-agreed conventions on how countries should take agreements made between them seriously.

What Mr Johnson is proposing isn’t so much a criminal act the UK could be prosecuted for, but a partial reneging on certain terms contained in a legal agreement. For a country that generated the term ‘my word is my bond’, in use for over 500 years and the motto of the London Stock Exchange since 1801, it is a remarkable turn of events.

Aside from the possible consequences of changing some of the terms retrospectively, it seems obvious that the UK government wants to send a clear message to both the EU and home audience that Britain is going to be doing things their own way and not be bound any more by agreements with or expectations from the EU.

Experts are divided on the benefits of the powers envisaged under this Bill. Interfering with the agreed customs status of Northern Ireland, which could see a hard border as yet established with the Republic of Ireland, is not going to go down well in Dublin, and in the border areas. The Good Friday agreement signed on 10 April 1998 and which brought to an end decades of terror centred on Northern Ireland, effectively created an open border between Ulster and the Republic. Mr Johnson is planning to have legislation available to change that.

While I understand his desire to thumb his nose at the EU, and be seen to be doing so, I find it incredible that he wants to risk rekindling the conflict known to many simply as The Troubles. That thought alone sends a shiver down my spine.

My position as a British ex-pat in the Netherlands is also suddenly brought back into focus. Reciprocal arrangements to allow each other’s citizens to remain after Brexit could be called into doubt. The Netherlands is not especially known for reneging on agreements any more than any country, but I do not want to become collateral damage in a campaign of recriminations should Dutch citizens wishing to stay in the UK start encountering problems. The Withdrawal Agreement contained the agreed intention to allow those already settled in other EU countries to continue to do so, subject to the individual country’s provisions for making that possible.

The Netherlands announced early on that people like me would be allowed to remain on the same footing as before; I would only lose the right to settle elsewhere in the EU, something which the Netherlands has no power over.

I really do not care very much about the UK shooting itself in the foot over the trade deal; I’m tempted to say that that is their funeral! I also have no real reason to travel to the UK any more since I no longer have any close family there. The Netherlands may lose a significant trading partner, but still retains 26 countries as trading partners within the EU. I would suggest that the economic damage suffered by the lack of a trade deal between the UK and the EU will be felt more in the UK than here.

I am suddenly reminded of school playgrounds back in junior school days. Groups of kids would form ‘gangs’ (not in the violent sense of the word) and the ultimate sanction was being excluded from such a gang. It could have been argued that there were far more pupils to mix with outside of the gang, but being excluded hardly ever brought more benefits than disadvantages.

Brits love exclusive clubs. The problem all through the history of Britain’s membership of the EU is that it wasn’t their club. That was essentially the sticking point. Instead of focussing on the economic benefits of membership, it was the perceived omnipotence of ‘Brussels’ that stuck in people’s minds.

Of course certain rules have disadvantaged the UK, such as the restrictions on state bale outs to the steel industry for example, but very many entrepreneurs and industries have benefitted enormously from the level playing field for trading with Britain’s closest neighbours.

Now the UK is not only enacting the choice of the narrow majority who voted Leave, by threatening to retroactively adjust the terms of the withdrawal agreement, they are showing a middle finger as they walk out of the door. I was brought up to regard such behaviour as being somewhat immature.

I remain very uneasy on the moral side of the illegal immigrant saga. Thousands leave various African countries each year to try for a better life in Europe. Note, I are not talking about asylum seekers here, although I am sure a small percentage might qualify. The overwhelming majority are economic migrants.

Their plan, such as it is, is to travel to Europe by whatever means and hope they can remain here, building a new life for themselves. They risk life and limb to cross the Mediterranean and end up being corralled in camps in, amongst other places, Greece.

Greece does not have the resources to deal with such an influx, and not unsurprisingly, looks to the EU to help them solve their problem. The EU hasn’t forgotten the financial mismanagement that nearly bankrupted the Greeks a few short years ago, and the money that was given or leant. There are those that feel that direct help to Greece should be tied to the obligation by the Greeks to put their finances in order.

What bothers me is how we deal with those from outside that want to gate-crash the systems in European countries. The aggressive actions of migrants trying to cross to the UK from France, or those seemingly setting fire to the holding camp on Lesbos to provoke action, do not endear me to their plight.

Those of us born here, or that immigrated quite legally on their own means, know all too well that you don’t get accommodation and income handed to you on a plate. If you fall on hard times, most countries here have a system to help out, but there is a lot of pressure on those systems. Why should people who crash the party expect a free ride into a better life?

Nations have spent centuries building themselves up – some of them at the expense of others. Do we have the moral high ground? Are we in a position to put up a no-entry sign on the shores of the Mediterranean? Are we justified in treating illegal immigrants worse than prisoners of war?

The question is not simply one of stemming the flow. Even if the final answer is a one-way ticket back to where they came from (although they are often devoid of documents on purpose), are we justified in being less than humanitarian while we process each case?

Simply rewarding their efforts will inevitably encourage more to try the same, and there are human traffickers making huge sums of money out of this. The root of the discontent on the African continent is inequality, some of which was caused, or at least fuelled, by the past colonial activities of major European countries.

I am not saying that reasoning is in the minds of all those seeking the promised land, but the percentage we spend on overseas aid, not all of which actually reaches the right pockets, is a drop in the ocean. Even that tiny amount is begrudged by many in our modern day societies.

Even shifting climate conditions in Africa resulting in failed crops has a lot to do with the pollution industrial countries have caused over the years.

All of this is an extremely complicated ethical question and cannot be solved overnight. However, we have wasted a lot of time not preparing ourselves for this debate. The problem of illegal migrants is not going to go away. Their sheer numbers and the length of Europe’s southern coastline would require a giant military operation to effectively police.

I do not condone the actions of illegal migrants but I can understand why they are doing it. Many have mobile phones, even though I cannot understand how they finance them. They have a means of observing life in the West, they can see what they are missing out on.

They are not above violence towards truckers at Calais, and now they have discovered that setting fire to their camps is an effective way of forcing more action to help them. They are exceedingly determined to get a foothold in Europe, and we haven’t yet worked out any adequate strategy for dealing with the situation.

Answers on a postcard …

Two news items in the Netherlands caught my eye today. The first was a demonstration in Amsterdam by those who run nightclubs and discotheques. At the moment they are really the only sector in the hospitality branch that has not been given leave to open its doors again since the beginning of the lockdown. One quote had me almost literally ‘rolling on the floor laughing’: they are worried that the ‘night culture’ will disappear.

How one can take an argument like that seriously is beyond me. It may well be that some, or even many, establishments will not survive their prolonged closure. Others will take their place when times change. I doubt very much if people will turn round next year and say to themselves “I don’t have the need to go clubbing anymore.” I personally wouldn’t mind if that sector ended up shrinking as a result of the pandemic, but that won’t happen.

What bothers me more is the example of a branch saying “we have a right to exist”, and if they are forced by the measures necessary to stem the pandemic to suspend or cease trading, they should be reminded of the laws of supply and demand. If there is no demand for their product, then their business plan has been rendered null and void.

The other news item was the call by a very conservative Christian political party for the government to publish a timetable for the relaxation of measures irrespective of whether there is a vaccine or not. They are particularly sore about the measures reducing church attendance which of course can be looked at in two ways. Christians that want to gather together are restricted still, and low church attendance means less income.

In my small church, the maximum number of people allowed to attend is around equal to the number of active members of the congregation. The biggest restriction is that congregational singing is not allowed, and as an organist myself, I regret this as much as anyone. However, the ‘right’ to sing in church does not justify the relaxation of measures to the point where church services become an unsafe place to be. Singing in a group greatly increases the chance of airborne infection. We ignore conventional wisdom and current medical advice at our peril.

Several reported group infections in various countries have been related to church gatherings. It is incredible that a Christian political party is trying to make national headlines by championing unsafe behaviour. That applies also to the nightclub brigade. The dangers of clubbers getting too close to each other and spreading corona are just too great.

I want to keep myself safe. Realistically that personal restraint will have to last until I can be vaccinated with an approved vaccine. As I write this, I am on holiday in Berlin. The culture here for wearing face masks is far stronger, and I have had no difficulty in complying. Some people, it’s true, are a little lax when it comes to social distancing, but I have not felt unsafe here at all. The weather has been kind enough to allow eating outside almost all the time – that undoubtedly helps.

When I get back home tomorrow, I shall resume my restrained attitude to things. I do not go to parties, or go out to pubs. I have not eaten out since the measures kicked in 6 months ago. I do my food shopping at quiet times of the day and keep my distance from others as best I can.

I hope that the government will not yield to populist pressure to relax all the rules prematurely. If they did, that dreaded ‘second wave’ will not be long in coming! If they did, I would have to protect myself even more vigorously than I do now. The Church will survive. ‘Night culture’ will survive. Traditions such as Carnaval will survive. Berlin is a tremendous city. It forces you to reflect on the history of the last century. The two world wars interrupted normal everyday life to a greater extent and for a longer period than this pandemic. Entrepreneurs had to be creative then, and must be so again now. Some entrepreneurs made a lot of money collaborating with the ‘enemy’ or working a black market. Some now are trying to do the same. It will all come out in the wash, as the old saying goes. I still believe in moral backbone, and in comeuppance for those who try and cut corners.

I like many things about the Netherlands, but moral backbone is not one of the country’s greatest claims to fame. I believe in capitalism as opposed to communism, but I do mean capitalism with a friendly face, not exploitation.

The pandemic is not going to suddenly disappear by default. Many still risk serious illness and life-threatening conditions until this corona virus is brought under control. Society should be allowed to function as safely as it can, but allowing nightclubs free rein in the light of the current knowledge about the transmission of corona, or exempting churches when it has been shown that church gatherings are high risk, that goes too far.

The next ‘deliverable’ is probably still at least 6 months away – I refer to a vaccination. In other words, we are only half way through this period, and the autumn and winter seasons are still ahead of us! Do the math!!