There is now a somewhat predictable movement against the social distancing measures introduced not only by the Dutch government but across the board in the EU.

The tension arises between those wanting to be able to go back to their jobs and those needing to be cautious because they are extra vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19.

The hospitality industry is making their pitch for increased freedom at the expense of those who have done their best to avoid contracting Covid-19 by following the advice from the government.

My beef is with the hospitality industry, both tourism and local. People that choose to ignore social distancing on holiday or when simply going out risk infecting others like me that try and limit their exposure to the corona virus by staying at home, working from home, and being ultra careful when going shopping.

I cannot avoid the feeling that it is the lining of the pockets of those owning the hospitality industry that is being voiced. A question of lobbying.

Much of the manufacturing and service industry can be re-started while implementing social-distancing. The hospitality industry relies on concentrated groups of people congregating, lingering, and spending more than they should. The effect on the spread of the corona virus is reasonably predictable.

We are reaching the point that profit is being stacked up against the health of those more vulnerable to Covid-19 – people that have no alternative way of protecting themselves. There is no vaccine available yet, and considering that the very existence of this virus is only less than 5 months old, the profit motive must not prevail.

When you start a business, you begin by analysing the market. Should the market change later, that is a risk that an entrepreneur has to take into account. Corona has upset the market in that social distancing rules has limited profitability in certain sectors. There is a limit to the amount of financial support the government should provide, and a definite limit to the amount of freedom (at the expense of vulnerable citizens) the government allows.

Money should not talk here. It is not fair on those who risk death if they become infected with the corona virus.

Mrs Sacoolas, the wife of a US diplomat stationed briefly in the UK at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, was involved in a road accident in which an 19 year old motorcyclist was killed.

The probable explanation is that Mrs Sacoolas, used to driving on the right hand side of the road, failed to drive on the left when she exited the base on 27th August 2019. Driving on the wrong side of the road resulted in a head-on collision with the motorcyclist who was on the correct side of the road.

Any motorist who has driven in countries which drive on the opposite side of the road to what they are used to will completely understand the circumstances. Assuming the above explanation, Mrs Sacoolas was in the wrong, full stop. Her incorrect observance of the rules of the road where she was driving resulted in the death of another road user who, again following the explanation above, was on the correct side of the road.

No amount of hand-wringing and apologies can alter the fact that the act itself was manslaughter. Courts rightly look at circumstances when judging such cases. A defence of ‘I had diplomatic immunity’ does not count because it does not address the facts of the incident. In fact, it is the most cowardly defence – even if legally admissible – which could be used.

Mrs Sacoolas made a mistake. We have all made mistakes – nobody is perfect. But her mistake cut short somebody else’s life. Both in the US, her native country, and in the UK, where the mistake took place, there are laws which apply when such a mistake results in a death. Why should she, simply on the basis of being married to a diplomat, be exempt from prosecution?

There are degrees of negligence. Failing to keep the pavement in front of your house ice free in winter whereby somebody slips over and dies as a result of hitting their head on the ground is one thing. Driving a vehicle on the wrong side of a road – an offence in itself – resulting in the death of another road user is quite another.
All drivers should be aware that they are in charge of a potentially lethal projectile. I remember the warnings of my driving instructor more than fourty years ago that I needed to be able to react to a child running out into the road between parked cars. If I killed such a child, you could argue that the child shouldn’t have been there or that the parents were not supervising the child correctly, but the fatal blow came from my vehicle, which I had been driving in such a way as to not be able to brake in time to avoid the collision. Traffic laws are designed to protect the weaker participents.

Mrs Sacoolas should be interviewed by Northamptionshire police in respect of this incident. If that investigation shows that she committed an offence, she should answer to a court for it. Immunity should not play any role in that proceedings since it does not address her actions or motivation.

Departing from the scene of an accident is also an offence. Her leaving the country is simply a glorified version of that offence. Nevertheless a court should decide that, not me.

Whatever way you view it, this is a matter for the courts. Only the innocent have nothing to fear from the justice systems in the UK and the US. I strongly suspect she is not innocent of causing this teenager’s death, so let her answer to a court to prove otherwise.

The UK government underlined today that EU citizens resident in the UK would not be shown the door after Brexit. It is not the first time this has been said, but in truth it is a very hollow statement for two main reasons.

Firstly, it says nothing about the rights of those EU citizens after Brexit which, in all honesty, would be less than they enjoy at present under the free-movement policy of the EU.

Secondly, it says nothing at all about the position of UK citizens at present living and working elsewhere in the EU, such as myself.

I have complained before in this blog about the exclusion of ex-pats from the franchise and of course they are being completely forgotten in the closing phase of the negotiations. Our position is actually far more complicated because we would not be subject to EU rules technically. We would become non-EU citizens overnight, and each individual EU member country would apply their own rules as to their status. Brussels has little or no jurisdiction over member-states’ policies on non-EU citizens.

Although the Dutch government has yet to legislate for UK passport holders living in the Netherlands (where I live), there is a simple move that would ease the minds of many who have lived here for at least 5 years: relax the rules on dual nationality for UK citizens. The law already contains exceptions, including allowing dual nationality with countries where you cannot give up your native passport. Extend that to UK citizens, at the very least to those who qualify for a Dutch passport by the date the UK leaves the EU.

Such a move would not solve every problem. I do not expect there to be an agreement on the continued consolidation of pension entitlement for Brits who have some years to claim from the UK. When I retire – still nearly 5 years from now – I will not get any state pension from the UK since I had only built up 7 years of entitlement before moving out of the country and the minimum contribution is now 10 years instead of the previous 5. The consolidation option, whereby the country you have the largest accumulation of qualifying years can be requested to add years worked in other EU countries (claiming it back from the countries involved centrally) would cease to apply after Brexit.

At least with dual nationality we would maintain free movement within the EU and the UK (post Brexit) and keep the door open to return permanently to the UK with a minimum of bureaucracy. So, Mr Rutte, what about it? In any event, it is high time the Dutch government clarified what the position of UK citizens resident in the Netherlands will be. The UK has dragged its feet during the negotiations on the deal, but the Dutch government is no better on this point. A year and a half after Article 50 was triggered by the UK, the Dutch government has done no better than utter soothing words which are meaningless unless backed up in law.

Some in Britain are calling for a people’s vote on the deal (still to be) reached between the UK and the EU on Brexit.

A doctor, part of a panel on Victoria Derbyshire’s morning current affairs programme today, made a striking point which rang a distinct bell with me.

Before undergoing surgery, for example, a patient must give ‘informed consent’. This means that not only must they consent to the procedure, they must be given all the relevant information on which to base that decision. You want to know not only what the surgeon is going to do, but what improvement or cure for your condition it will bring and what the potential risks are.

The doctor’s point was that when the referendum was held, the voters were not given all the relevant information. In fact, they were also given “facts” that we now know were completely unfounded. She said that if she provided as little or misleading information to a patient, she would end up being struck off!

The referendum did provide consent, but it was not informed consent. I choose to believe that was not essentially deliberate. We all hear political rhetoric every day, and almost as soon as the paint was dry on that bus, few people really believed that the NHS would get that 350 million pounds a week which would supposedly be saved by cancelling our membership to the European club.

The truth is that the real difficulties and ramifications of what would become known as Brexit were simply not known when the referendum was held. The few voices that tried to speak out were ridiculed and accused of promoting Project Fear. By the way, they still are! Project Fear has become synonymous with any critical comments dismissed by the other side of an argument, irrespective of whether or not there is any truth or foundation in said comments. It is a cheap retort seemingly voiced by those unwilling to enter into an actual reasoned debate.

With every day that goes by, the possibility of a hard Brexit – one with no deal in place – is looming larger and larger. Even now the consequences of that are being played down, but there are very real problems to overcome. Take customs checks at ports like Dover, or civil aviation, or the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for example. The resolution of these issues without accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on at least some aspects is impossible. The point has also been made that there is currently no country trading with the EU solely on World Trade Organisation terms.

There is, I think, an inherent weakness in the Article 50 procedure anyway. Most of the practical problems that weren’t even conceived when the referendum was held have only come to light as the negotiations progressed. The two-year period allowed for in Article 50 is simply too short to expose these issues and have an informed public debate on them. It is certainly too short for a country like the UK to disentangle itself from the complicated web of common agreements and rules which have been the order of the day for the UK’s day-to-day cooperation with its European neighbours.

Only now are we becoming informed. Better late than never perhaps. However, a public vote on the final deal would be based on completely different information than the original referendum. This time, at least, the real price of securing the goals Brexiteers wanted would be known.

Reading from afar, the news that some MPs, led apparently by Theresa May, are lamenting the silencing of the chimes from the Queen Elizabeth Tower for the next four years is absolutely laughable!

I mean it – I laughed out loud when I heard that!

One’s faith in the contact MPs have with reality is really challenged on this one. The tower itself needs renovating, and the image of workmen having to scamper into hiding every time the clock chimed is priceless. The clock itself needs work done to it too, apparently. Let them get on with it, I say!

When would be a good time to do this? After the next general election?

With so many important issues demanding the government and parliament’s attention, they should really avoid doing a ‘Boris’ and make ridiculous comments on such things as the silence of the chimes!

Whatever next? Heaven forbid they demand the re-casting of Big Ben itself, so that the crack which gives the bell its distinctive sound is removed!

Today – 27th July – the government have announced their intentions regarding the position of EU nationals in the UK.

What has not been addressed is the position of UK nationals living in other EU countries. It seems that we are to be ‘sacrificed’. If we had lived out of the UK too long, we had no right to vote in the Brexit referendum, and our status or future post-Brexit is now of no interest, it seems.

Whatever my personal motivation was for living and working in another EU country, it is looking as if I will have no choice but to renounce my nationality and become Dutch. Only then can I at least be assured of some state pension albeit without the years I paid into the UK system before I left.