(from Blithering Bunny)
An extraordinary letter from Peter Mandelson to Michael Grade (Chairman of the BBC), obtained by The Times:
PETER MANDELSON, the European Trade Commissioner, has mounted an attack on John Humphrys, the Today programme journalist, complaining to the BBC of his “virulently anti-European” views and claiming that the “anti-European bias” of some BBC presenters is a “problem”.
In a stinging letter, obtained by The Times, to Michael Grade, the BBC Chairman, Mr Mandelson accused the BBC of failing in its charter obligation to promote “understanding” of European affairs and declared: “I do not think the present BBC coverage is good enough.”
He said the BBC gave too much coverage to moderate Eurosceptics and should instead give more coverage to extreme Eurosceptics such as UKIP, who wanted to take Britain out of the EU altogether.
Mr Humphrys last night dismissed the criticism as political opportunism. “It’s delightful for once to be accused of being Eurosceptic when we’re usually accused at the Today programme of being Europhiles,” he said. “It’s interesting that Peter Mandelson has any idea of what my views on the subject are.
Read the rest here, including this:
His comments that “UKIP views are, if anything, under-represented” was seen by one leading moderate Eurosceptic yesterday as a cynical ploy. “It just shows how cynical the Government is, wanting to make all Eurosceptics seem like loonies,” he said.
If Mandelson – who is employed by the EC, let us not forget – is right about one thing, it is that the BBC has mostly ignored the EU issue, giving it sketchy, superficial and inadequate coverage. But Mandelson’s grasp on reality, always shaky, appears weaker than ever if thinks that the BBC is anti-EU and Humphreys “virulently anti-EU”.
The timing of the public release of this letter, which was supposed to be confidential (why? Was he worried that people would laugh at his views?) is particularly embarrassing for Mandelson, coming as it did after a recent inquiry into the BBC found that the culture at BBC News led to a “reluctance to question pro-EU assumptions”, and the day after the BBC ran a negative documentary on Kilroy in his UKIP days.
But of course this letter is just the filip the pro-Europeans at the BBC need. Now they can push for even more pro-EU coverage, on the basis that Mandelson has decreed that they’re not pro-EU enough.
P.S. Richard North has also seen this story:
This is undoubtedly a “spoiler” by Mandelson, who undoubtedly correctly assesses that if he can engineer a complaint against the BBC, its corporate tendency is to suggest that, if it is getting complaints from both sides, then its coverage must be about right – even though the review panel rejected this suggestion… Mandelson, with his known tactical skills, is obviously making an early attempt to tilt the coverage in favour of the “yes” campaign.
P.P.S. Reader Bill Collins informs me that “back in June the BBC dug up and publicized a claim that the BBC was biased in favor of Israel. The article doesn’t mention that the BBC has been accused of bias in the other direction”.
Hmmmm … there must be a referendum planned. Mandelson’s letter is obviously so wrong in fact that I think it would be more enlightening to discuss the motivations. Or his insanity. He’s known to speak regularly still with Blair so this may well be part of preparing the battlefield for the refendum on the constitution. I’d like to know why this letter was supposed to be confidential. Mandelson represents a foreign body, hostile to the British nation and is writing to the top man at Britain’s most high profile broadcaster in order to shape propaganda. He deserves a kicking for that alone.
Mandelson represents ‘a foreign body, hostile to the British nation’?? That’s the sort of view he wants increased BBC coverage of by the sound of it.
Today’s Hardtalk – Zeinab Badawi talking to EU commissioner for regional policy Danuta Hubner.
Caught some of it early a.m. after the Superbowl had finished and admittedly I was a bit er… bleary… but as far as I could tell the show should’ve been called Softshite. Badawi asked a couple of questions about the EU’s dodgy accounts but didn’t press Hubner on her responses. According to Hubner there’s no fraud in the EU and the commission intends to deal with the problem of the EU’s accounts by – wait for it – relaxing the auditing procedures! Unfortunately, Badawi missed the opportunity to get ‘hard talking’ about that or anything else really and it all ended very lovey-dovey.
I might’ve been pissed, but I’m sure that’s the gist (as Shakespeare once said, probably).
See for yourself – it’s on News 24 again tonight.
cockney
The aim of the EU is one country, presumably called ‘Europe’. To achieve this the individual, sovereign nations of Europe are being abolished. This is common knowledge in many countries on the continent. It seems only in Britain do people delude themselves that there is some halfway point where we can be members of the single market, sign up to some directives and treaties but go no further. That option doesn’t exist. The choice is full withdrawal or becoming the north west province of Europe. That is why it is hostile to Britain.
Also, I might add, over the last decade the EU has demostrated to be alien to one very British tradition and mantle- democracy.
‘This is undoubtedly a “spoiler” by Mandelson’
It could be an attempt to get UKIP publicity so they take Tory votes as well.
Pete,
I’ve seen your view expressed many times, usually by the sort of people who the government/Mandelson would just love to portray as the face to Euroskepticism.
In parts of Europe there is an increasing belief that Europe should play more of a coherent role on the world stage – particularly in the context of a US that looks increasingly alien from a European perspective. In Britain we might not agree that this is a key goal.
That doesn’t make the goal a single nation state. Try telling your average Frenchman that France should cease to exist and you’ll get a response that will make you look like a federalist.
Cockney, can we at least agree that democracy is not the cornerstone of the eu?
“I’ve seen your view expressed many times, usually by the sort of people who the government/Mandelson would just love to portray as the face to Euroskepticism.”
Which people are those? Please don’t use any of the following words: ‘racists’, ‘xenophobes’ or ‘little Englanders’. You see, telling the truth by definition cannot be racist nor xenophobic. Your statement is precisely wrong, by the way. The government hates the idea of the true nature of the EU becoming known. Of course, knowledge spreads and people slowly realise what is happening. Check out the polls.
“In parts of Europe there is an increasing belief that Europe should play more of a coherent role on the world stage – particularly in the context of a US that looks increasingly alien from a European perspective.”
Hee hee hee. In parts of Europe such as Brussels and White City perhaps. Anyway, how can Europe play any role on the world stage when it can’t prevent a Balkan war on its own doorstep and has a
cont’d …
has all the firepower of one Texan gun shop? Cockney, Europe is moving away from your culture and heritage, not the US.
Agreed. I should stress that whilst I am in favour of the EU as a concept and think that continued participation is vital for Britain I firmly believe that its current functionality and democratic accountability is utterly crap.
Pete,
Wouldn’t you agree that if there’s one thing more unpopular in the UK than the EU it’s the administration of George W Bush. If you don’t then you frequent some extremely unrepresentative social circles.
Lots of people dislike the EU for entirely legitimate reasons, most of which I agree with although my personal CBA comes down in favour, just. I’d never accuse anyone of being racist, xenophobic etc etc etc. I just don’t think accusations of ‘sinister plots to abolish Britain’ stand up to any sort of scrutiny and that the government would love to oppose that argument rather than – say – the fact that the CAP is a pile of pants.
Re: Balkan war – quite, one of the arguments in favour of co-operation beyond the strictly economic.
“Wouldn’t you agree that if there’s one thing more unpopular in the UK than the EU it’s the administration of George W Bush.”
Not really. It’s an irrelevent comparison anyway. You’re equating ‘USA’ with the current Washington administration, a snapshot in history. I equate ‘USA’ with a nation of nearly 300 million, the existence of which over the last couple of hundred years has been of incalculable benefit to the world. By the way, the UK and USA have a common culture, heritage, history and blood.
cont’d …
Here’s an idea for you, cockney. I agree. I agree that we must give up the pound and neuter Parliament. We must pool our sovereignty (isn’t that what it’s called?) for the greater common good. We must be governed from afar and if our interests are not heeded we must suck it up for the common good.
So let’s tell the EU to shove it and join with our American brethren. Britain will take up the mighty Dollar and become a US State. A historic rejoining of common peoples. After all, London is closer to Washington than Hawaii. We’ll be the richest state in the world’s richest country.
What says you, cockney? Any flimsey, half thought out reason I have ever heard for full EU integration is more than satisfied by this plan. As you are no doubt not a racist nor a xenophobe, nor are your points related in any way to anti-Americanism, I think you may find it a winner.
Pete,
Yes, if we have to be part of a union, being the 51st state of the USA would be the only option. Mind you, I think the the Yanks would be mad to have us as we are now.
P.S. The US Declaration of Independence would make a pretty good template for a similar one by us. I like the irony in that.
We wouldn’t want your NHS, that’s for damn sure!
Seriously, you guys deserve better than 51st state. Co-billing at least.
How about the USAA? The United States of Anglo-America. You can keep that Queen of yours, just don’t expect the rest of us to courtsy or bow. We’re a mite touchy about that kind of stuff.
(cockney falls over dead with a combination cerebral stroke/heart attack! the horror! the horror!)
Cockney
”I should stress that whilst I am in favour of the EU as a concept and think that continued participation is vital for Britain”
Why?
”that its current functionality and democratic accountability is utterly crap.”
Who is going to change it?
”one thing more unpopular in the UK than the EU it’s the administration of George W Bush.”
Why? (apart from jealousy)
Susan,
LOL
yoy,
[Cockney:]”one thing more unpopular in the UK than the EU it’s the administration of George W Bush.”
Not with me it ain’t, not by a long chalk.
I can’t stand the EU, now it has gone far beyond a tradijng community which is what we voted for in 1975. And I think Bush is grossly “misunderestimated”. As was Reagan. So maybe cockney is polling the wrong constituency here – much of what we object to about the BBC’s bias is its anti-US stance and the weakening it wants of an alliance that has served this country well for many decades.
OT Richard Sambrook at the BBC is getting involved in the big story that some of the networks have been silent on – the head of CNN news saying at davos that US forces have murdered a lot of journalists :
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/02/07/samb_esn.html
JohninL, Re your link:
[Sambrook:]”They [some journalists] had been deliberately killed as individuals– perhaps because they were mistaken for insurgents…”
“Mistaken for insurgents” indeed. I don’t think I can tell the difference with many of them myself.
Of course, that ol’ pen is mightier than the sword, as they like to claim, so perhaps, at worst, in their case it’s an example of the precautionary principle being fashionably adopted by the military. Then even if it were true, the eco-nuts and their utopian lefty co-religionists would surely approve. So what’s the problem? Fashion is important.
[Sambrook:]”…suggest some changes to international law which ensure that when journalists are killed we can get a proper and open investigation and sense of accountability”
Unbelievable.
Why has Sambrook as effective head of the BBC’s global news output not ensured that the BBC covered the explosive story that the head of CNN has effectively accused US troops of murdering lots of journalists ?
And don’t forget that Sambrook had been expected by many people to resign over the Gilligan affair – he\ was heavily criticised by Hutton.
Of course he has no bias !!!
Pete,
If we could negotiate a mutually beneficial single market with the US whilst retaining reasonable minimum levels of working standards, I’d be well up for it. We could call it the 51st state agreement or whatever. No reason why this would compete with our involvement in the EU.
Unlike Europe, I sincerely doubt that the US needs to pool it’s resources in order to attain a reasonable level of influence for its values on the world stage but if it was prepared to compromise….
yoy,
Why the EU? Because I think that the common market has and will lead to a net economic benefit to UK. Because the EU has assisted previously economically backward nations (Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece) become valuable trading partners and can do so again with the new joiners in time, with vast benefits for the UK. Because capital flows from Europe have regenerated areas in the UK which seemed to be at death’s door in the 70s/80s. Because London’s status as the financial capital of an economically united Europe has generated a vast amount of prosperity for the country.
Cockney, no one disputes the trade advantages of the EU, or at least the ones there were previously. Over the last 10 years however the EU has changed direction. It’s no longer a trade block, those in charge of it don’t see it as one, they see it as a quasi-nation. It’s undeniable that the United States of Europe is what the EU wants, but its building it backwards. The institutions are arising despite the fact no majority wishes for such a state.
A justice system, a police force, an army, a currency…. All these are the sign of a state, and to top it all off the constitution which guarentees EU primacy over nation states.
It it walks like a nation, talks like a nation etc etc it’s a nation. Oh and one which is corrupt to the core and undemocratic to boot. This is why it must be resisted in its current, or any such like, form.
Today programme this morning:-
Latest conspiracy piece – the USA is contracting out torture of suspected terrorists to countries such as Saudi Arabia. In hushed, conspiratorial tones: “We couldn’t get anyone from the US State Department to speak to us but we were able to get hold of someone who used to work for them”…..
Overall conclusion: Bad USA, without any real evidence, but hey, who cares in Beebazoid land as long as those Yanks are shown in a bad light.
But hang on a minute – isn’t Saudi Arabia on the panel to advise the UN’s Human Rights Commission on what are and are not human rights abuses such as torture? The very same UN that the BBC gets all dewy-eyed about?
Come on Beebazoids, you can’t have it both ways. Either evil Saudi Arabia is doing evil USA’s bidding or it is using the UN Human Rights panel to be a beacon of light to the rest of us.
Which is it BBC?
Cockeny, you sound like you hold the naive view that the EU is really just a free-trade block. If that were so, as a non-xenophobic free-trade supporter, I’d be all for it. But it isn’t.
Have you read the works of North and Booker, such as The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union, or The Castle of Lies, or The Mad Officials? Or The Rotton Heart of Europe by former EC economist Bernard Connolly?
Scott,
I certainly don’t believe that the the EU is restricted to being a free trade block. I do believe that in order to secure the best possible internal and external trading environment for its member states it is necessary for the EU to operate and have judicial authority beyond strictly trade related boundaries. I do believe there are flaws in how it has carried this out.
Curruption within the EU is a concern of mine. I haven’t read the books you’ve mentioned. I do however read the financial press in detail, working in the sphere of multinational business, I have a lot of experience of companies operating in Europe and beyond and I live, work and pay tax within the boundaries of the EU so on this one I think I’m entitled to come to my own views.
The EU is a single customs area not a free trade zone.
>I have a lot of experience of companies operating in Europe and beyond and I live, work and pay tax within the boundaries of the EU so on this one I think I’m entitled to come to my own views.
I’ve no problem with you having your own view, of course. I just wanted to know whether you know the material that will be taken as read by a lot of readers here.
I’m not saying you aren’t qualified to debate these issues just because you haven’t, but it might help you understand where the people you’re debating are coming from, just as it helps them when you are admirably straight-forward about yourself and the things that you think are important.
Pete,
Wouldn’t you agree that if there’s one thing more unpopular in the UK than the EU it’s the administration of George W Bush
Wouldn’t like to split the country on this one………I doubt either could must a majority and that is why Britain like Janus faces both ways
Pete,
If we could negotiate a mutually beneficial single market with the US whilst retaining reasonable minimum levels of working standards, I’d be well up for it. We could call it the 51st state agreement or whatever. No reason why this would compete with our involvement in the EU
Why ? China had tariff-free access to US and EU markets without any commitment to labour standards……..since you have to compete with China globally just how do you expect to preserve expensive labour standards ?
http://www.namebase.org/main3/Movement-European.html
http://www.wcml.org.uk/internat/euromove.htm
http://www.globalbritain.org/BOO/HowTheySungIt.htm
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/rrtalk.htm
And then there’s Peter Mandelson. Via the United Nations Association, of all obscure vehicles, by the end of his final year at Oxford University, in 1976, Mandelson had become Chair of British Youth Council. The British Youth Council began as the British section of the World Assembly of Youth, which was set up and financed by MI6 and then taken over by the CIA in the 1950s, created to combat the Soviet Union’s youth fronts. By Mandelson’s time in the mid1970s under a Labour government be it noted the British Youth Council was said to be financed by the Foreign Office, though that may be a euphemism for MI6, the British secret intelligence service.
In 1977 Mandelson and one Charles Clarke, another familiar name, then head of the British National Union of Students, put together a delegation from the UK to attend the 1978 World Festival of Youth. The World Festival of Youth meetings were great cold war jambourees at which the opposing blocs put forward propaganda at the Third Wo
at the Third World. Charles Clarke, head of the NUS in 1977, and chosen to fly the flag for Britain in Cuba, became Neil Kinnock’s chief gatekeeper.
Peter Mandelson, we were told in 1995 by Donald McIntyre in the Independent, is ‘a pillar of the two bluechip foreign affairs thinktanks, Ditchley Park and Chatham House’.
Rick,
I’d be hoping that we wouldn’t be looking to compete with China in its key sectors. No matter how much business regulation and employment rights we stripped away we’d struggle to get down to Chinese labour costs.
Europe needs to ensure that it is highly competitive in the fields of highly skilled and/or technologically advanced products and services. The EU assists in providing Europe wide markets for these services, enforcing common standards to ensure product quality and a decent working environment and providing a more powerful negotiating voice externally. The alternative is skulking behind vast protection barriers – the CAP shows what happens here and is by far the biggest single problem with the EU.
The ‘end game’ of the EU has always been slightly sinister in my opinion.
I found this interesting article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union
I was surprised to find that they actually intend to absorb the entire former USSR!
Is it a case of us absorbing them… or them absorbing us? Perhaps Roger Knapman’s communist conspiracy isn’t so cuckoo after all.
…Of particular interest is the map near the bottom of the page.
Cockney, surely you can see that the EU is restraining business not enhancing it at the present time. So much red tape, and there’s a whole army of people whose job it is to create more on a permanent basis! Socialism and capitalism rarely mix, but I’d say the Chinese are doing a better job than the EU in that respect at the moment.
I’d certainly agree that there is far too much unnecessary beaurocratic micro management of business from the EU. I hope that we’ve reached a tipping point on that front – various relatively positive noises have been emanating from important people recently.
Surely you agree however that in a common market within developed countries some regulation is required in order to set a level playing field with guaranteed levels of product quality and employee protection. Within the global marketplace Europe’s selling points are that its population is extremely highly skilled, its legal framework is secure guaranteeing quality and security and its an extremely pleasant place in which to live and work.
Whilst China has some very pretty numbers in its annual growth rate I wouldn’t fancy working in one of those factories.
People seem to think that China’s growth will continue uninterrupted even though their banking system is f*cked.
Look what happened to Japan (which was supposed to be on the verge of over-taking the United States). China’s economy, with it’s continuous state interference, not to mention its vast public sector, contains the seeds of it’s own destruction.
The left’s portrayal of the ‘rise of China’ and the decline of the United States is so naive it’s almost laughable. It’s almost reminiscent of the 50s (not that I was around then!) when they insisted that the Soviet Union was going to bury us (because it had higher economic growth at the time, rather like China now).
I think the mentality is well explained in this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/02/08/do0802.xml
Yes – undoubtedly a spoiler by Mandelson. Probably agreed with some BBC exectuive over a lavish lunch in Brussels…
Cockney, please explain why it is in our interest to chuck money into the EU pot so that those countries you mentioned can take it out,especially as they sometimes show bad grace?Remember the Polish leader saying his country was subsidising Britian.Why not we keep our money and they keep theirs?
Robin, I assume you mean the newly joined states specifically.
Our net contribution will contribute to the economic development of those countries along the lines of the improvements achieved by the likes of Spain, Portugal and Greece once they joined the EU. This will create large new markets for British goods, significantly increase demand within those markets and provide opportunities for investment by UK business, the profits of which will be repatriated to Britain.
In my opinion the medium and long term benefits to Britain will exceed the initial (and ongoing) costs of our net contribution. Essentially the same reason why anyone invests in anything.
It’s debatable whether the amount of our money that was poured into Spain etc. was worth it. Yes, it has probably increased demand for British goods. But are we getting back as much or more than we put in? Neither the EU nor the British government ever try to make this case with hard figures.
Bear in mind that it’s governments making the decisions about where the money goes, and governments are not particularly good at investing in ways that boost productivity. Bear in mind also that the EU costs us an awful lot because of the ridiculous regulations that inhibit business – and these are costs that are usually hidden.
Remember the German situation? West Germany would pump money into East Germany, and this would improve things so much in East Germany that West Germany would end up getting more back. Well, that hasn’t worked.