(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”.
>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.
But governments do not have the same incentives to get these decisions right as business do (and the latter find these decisions hard enough to make even with those incentives). So many other things come to influence the decision.
Essentially, you’re asking us to let the government take a big cheque from us, and “invest” it in Europe, with a vague promise that we’ll benefit in the long run. What sort of guarantee do we have? None. How is the success or failure of the scheme monitored? It isn’t. What happens to the people who took the cheque if we don’t get the return we were promised? Nothing much, they’ll have already feathered their own nests.
And let’s not forget that there are plnety of businesses who are much better equipped to take our money voluntarily and invest it in Europe on our behalf.
Cockney,so we pay these countries to do trade with them?Do they pay us when we import their goods?Their lorries dont pay our road tax when they use our roads.And which countries should recieve our largesse or,your words,investment?Only those in the EU,or the world in general?And how much and for how long?And on what terms?
It is widely considered that the reason Europe, rather than China or India, produced the Renaissance, Columbus, science, the industrial revolution etc was because it had pretty much one joint culture but didn’t have one government – thus Columbus didn’t have to settle for the first king he met. By that standard the EU, with it’s joint standards on GM, nuclear power, farm tariffs etc is the antithesis of European culture & destructive of our genius.
On the other hand it is unfair to blame them for not stopping the Balkan wars – that was never the programme. The EU role, under Kohl’s Nazi leadership, was only to start it.
Robin,
The newly joined EU countries are ideally placed to receive our investment/largesse, as they are obliged by their membership of the EU to observe the regulations (ridiculous of otherwise) governing the common market. This eliminates many of the risks which would usually form part of making an overseas investment – fluctuating tarriffs, unforseen government intervention etc etc.
Why take the risk? Past form. You might argue that the EU is dipping its toes into dangerous waters with the army, human rights law etc etc, but in my experience its pretty clear that the core trade function has been extremely beneficial.
Why government rather than individual business? Clearly these work in tandem – the government’s investment secures a favourable economic climate which British businesses can exploit to create profits in excess of those they would otherwise.
Cockney, Those countries are not obliged to observe all EU regulations,and probably will ignore many of them anyway.My experience(international haulier) of the EU isthat it does not work for Britian.I dont wish the countries of the EU ill,just we should not be part of it.We are always short-changed,not just by Brussels,but our own civil servants as well.If we were free of it,our own mandarins would have one less excuse to cover up for their indolence and incompetence.I wanted to see an advantage to this EU because we pay dearly for it.What you have said so far is not 100% true.Can you persuade me?
Robin,
My experience (in financial services in the City) and that of most of my clients is that for all its faults the EU is positive.
If it’s not your experience that the EU is beneficial to your business then I can’t argue with that, and there seem to be a few specific issues in relation to the hauliage industry as you mentioned above (and I’ve read about before).
The debate should be based on the experiences of people whom Europe directly impacts. Instead it seems to be mainly between fluffy idealists who identify Europe as something cuddly and unAmerican on one side and those who read in the paper that the French want to abolish Britain on the other.
cockney
Hmmmm could that have been aimed my way, I wonder? Surely not, as I haven’t mentioned anywhere I saw such statements in a newspaper. Let’s see what some others think:
“The Federated Republic of Europe – the United States of Europe – that is what must be. National autonomy no longer suffices. Economic evolution demands the abolition of national frontiers. If Europe is to remain split into national groups, then Imperialism will recommence its work. Only a Federated Republic of Europe can give peace to the world.”
– Trotsky, an inspiration to you all!
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
-Jean Monnet, Founder of the European Movement, 1952
cont’d …
“No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice that any adequate plan [to build the EU] must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into their abandonment of their traditional economic defences…”
-Lord Thorneycroft, Privy Councillor, Conservative Party Chairman 1975-1981.
“Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers, I have executive powers for which there is no other name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government.”
-Romano Prodi, EU Commission President. European Parliament, November 1999
“The Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of the member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas”
-Jean-Claude Trichet, Head of European Central Bank. The European, 13th December 1998.
And (finally!), a word from a wise man:
“Any nation which gives up its fr
cont’d …
“Any nation which gives up its freedom in pursuit of economic advantage deserves to lose both.”
-Thomas Jefferson, US President 1801-1809.
…..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…….
Er No.
We don’t want a level playing field, we want free competition. The idea that Eurocrats can somehow unmderstand what the customer understands by quality and plan regulations that deliver that is pure socialist ignorance.
As for Employee Protection, that has simply led to mass unemployment.
If Thomas Jefferson wants a fight about it he can name his time and place.
EU serf – I really don’t see the benefit in racing the Lithuanians back to the industrial revolution but if you’re happy to sign away your rights for the greater good I’m sure your boss will be more than happy to oblige……
Cockney, YES big business(city of London)is usually in favour of the EU or World Government,but the small businessman,who has his feet on the ground,is suffering as are the workers.Its not just hauliers,small farmers and fishermen,its all the normal folk in England.Overall we are better off out.So far we have had a lot of cant(and LibDem drivel) but no one can really give good persuading reasons yo stay in.Can you?
Let’s not forget, Humphreys is one of the few, if not the only journalist Blair runs scared of. If memory serves me right Blair refuses to be interviewed by him. Given that JH is one of the few, if not the only objective journalist remaining at the BBC that says a lot. Many of the BBC cronies as well as New Labour would like to see the back of him no doubt.