From the opening speil to a Have Your Say forum:
Is UKIP the “voice of the British majority”?
Is the UK Independence Party at the “centre-ground of British public opinion” as its new leader, Nigel Farage, claims?The party is best known for campaigning to withdraw Britain from the European Union. Despite this, it won 10 seats in the 2004 European Parliament elections.
Emphasis added. Spotted by Pete_London.
Personally I’d like to see the BBC give prominence to sane views of how we might position ourselves in the EU, such as this interesting effort from ASI http://www.adamsmith.org/index.php/main/individual/eutopia1/ .
All we get at the moment is pretty uncomplaining acceptance of the natural state of being a member vs frowning coverage of the d*ckhead UKIP tendency. No analysis of the actual benefits, problems, opportunities whatsoever.
I think it’s bad writing, rather than bias: the point striven for is that UKIP stands for withdrawal from the EU, but has MEPs at Strasbourg. That’s not an inconsistent position for UKIP, of course, although Beeboids would never say the same of the SNP vis-à-vis Westminster. Actually, I’ve changed my mind; it’s bad writing AND bias.
Cockney, the problem is that the BBC and its cohorts believe the benefits of EU membership are self-evident. Certainly self-evident to them, as they favour more centralisation and a reduction in real competition in an open market, which is replaced by a sort of pseudomarket limited to the choices the EU deems suitable. Ideal for the BBC TV department, who can’t really face competition anymore. Radio is a different matter…
Authoritarians, amongst which the Beeb should be counted, favour more and bigger government expressed through the increased regulation and “standardisation” wrought by the EU.
The point is, since they assume the benefits are self-evident, they don’t bother explaining them to the common man. And since they reckon the benefits outweigh any problems the EU might bring (excessive regulation, loss of national sovereignty, loss of representation etc etc), they don’t bother explaining those either. Instead they simlpy let out a lot of feelgood rubbish around the fringes, and act as if the EU’s existence is simply the natural way of things.
A
Absolutely correct. They’re shooting themselves in the foot with this arrogant b*llocks (not that they should be pro-EU in the first place obviously) because it allows the anti-EU faction to dominate the factual argument.
Outside relatively high level business circles I’ve rarely heard a decent case for the EU – your average trendy North London liberal type for whom it ‘feels’ right couldn’t tell you why he supports it other than that the French make top food, Italian clothes are nice and Barcelona is v. chic. The BBC and its ilk are largely to blame.
How peculiar. I just tried to click through and Have Your Say seems to be offline atm –
“This Have Your Say service is currently unavailable. We are doing some essential software maintenance.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.”
What’s the matter, weren’t the comments espiousing the correct viewpoint?!
The HYS “moderators” try all kinds of tricks to “balance” the debates that frequently don’t go their way. Sometimes they just close a debate after a few days – no matter how many comments it has attracted – if it’s really going against the BBC line.
They must be amazed to discover how unpopular their agenda really is.
I agree with Chris. When I read that DHYS opening spiel, my biased BBC neuron fired straight away. But on reflection, I think the “despite” simply refers to the incongruity of having MEPs while objecting to our membership of the EU. But again as Chris says, that sort of despite could be sprayed around at any nationalist group.
On the benefits of the EU, I genuinely think that freer trade across European borders, and a degree of free movement of capital and even people is a benefit. Unfortunately, these benefits accrue to non members just as much as members – American companies and American individuals can in practice enjoy these freedoms pretty much the same as EUers. Which means that British businesses and British people don’t need the UK to be in the EU to benefit from it. All that membership does is give us the costs – in money and regulation.
@ Cockney:
A dinner party game (perhaps best played only at exceptionally dull DPs, admittedly) is to find the EU proponent inn the room and ask them what is their one very very best killer argument for EU integration.
I have been doing this for years and it is remarkable how often even dedicated EUphiles struggle to come up with anything at all, never mind anything demonstrably beneficial. “It’s inevitable / It’s the future”, like the EU is a new version of Windows or something, is about as coherent as it ever gets. The real arguments – the ones about eliminating tax competition, and building a protectionist wall around old Europe – aren’t really respectable enough to be aired in public.
The only positive argument seems to be that tourists will save money changing their holiday money. if that’s the goal one could save them more than that by abolishing the airport tax, of course.
There is a case to be made for the EU as a trade bloc, and I see the UKIP stance as merely a gratuitously extreme perspective, well in excess of what they actually want, adopted simply to move the central ideological position closer to what they’d settle for.
The BBC is essentially expressing an identically extreme opinion but coming from the opposite pole. It is clear why, and it is also clear to me that the BBC’s refusal to contemplate or acknowledge thoughtful alternative views (like that you cite) has a lot to do with the shrill tone of the “debate” on this subject.
t_c_c writes:
“There is a case to be made for the EU as a trade bloc, and I see the UKIP stance as merely a gratuitously extreme perspective, well in excess of what they actually want, adopted simply to move the central ideological position closer to what they’d settle for.”
Don’t count on it. Withdrawal from the EU might strike terror into the hearts of denizens of White City, but many of us are in deadly earnest that it is absolutely necessary for the prosperity and ultimate freedom of our nation.
freedeom from what GCooper ? I guess you’re pretty conservative in most of your views do you not therefore relish a large, efficient market. Free trade and all that ?
but thats the thing radar – the EU is far from being an efficient free market. its rapidly transformed itself into an overegulated superstate run by the dictats of unelected EU Commissioners and bureaucrats.
The British people did NOT sign up to that when they voted on Common Market entry.
A free market for agricultural produce into the EU would do more to eliminate poverty in Africa than any other single measure we could think of. Unfortunately the French farmers can’t be arsed to compete, so it won’t happen. Just imagine, millions die each year just to make sure we have lots of picturesque extras available for remakes of “A Year in Provence”.
the_camp_commandant:
@ Cockney:
A dinner party game (perhaps best played only at exceptionally dull DPs, admittedly) is to find the EU proponent inn the room and ask them what is their one very very best killer argument for EU integration.
Mine would be the only sure historical & logical way to combat the threat of Islam- and I would hope that some Germans, Danes, Dutch and Belgians might be at the same table:-)
@ Radar:
Why does a free market require political union?
GCooper
Don’t count on it. Withdrawal from the EU might strike terror into the hearts of denizens of White City, but many of us are in deadly earnest that it is absolutely necessary for the prosperity and ultimate freedom of our nation.
Hear hear.
I was just playing devils advocate. Political cooperation would certainly be required although union is not. Totally OT, but regarding opening up European markets to the african nations, would it really be in their interests for their fragile economies to be totally dependant on the success of their crops ? I wonder…
The BBC and debt relief;
It’s over a year since Bob/Bono and the likes decided they would push for the Millstone of debt which hangs round nearly every third world country to be cut lose or at the very least chipped away to a smaller much easier managed burden;
So with the first world removing $72 billion of debt from those third world countries how does the BBC report on this story?
“So how is debt relief working out for those who live in the poorest countries? Do they feel like they have won a “victory”? “Not at all, we’re still poor and we still have to do what the international institutions tell us to do,” says DeRoy Kwesi Andrew, a science teacher and filmmaker from Accra in Ghana”.
And;
“At Gleneagles, Ghana had a huge chunk of its debt – $4.2 billion – written off forever. Surely that is a good thing? Andrew says it “sounds good” but the reality is rather different. Debt relief only focuses on “fixing the problems of the past”, rather than investing in a better future, he says.”
And;
“”Debt relief gives poor countries no real new money or resources. All those billions of dollars in debt relief – it sounds like a lot, but it will be paid by G8 governments into the vaults of the World Bank and others over the next few years. We won’t see it.”
And
“”We want houses made from cement with zinc roofing. Then they won’t collapse in the heavy rains, which can kill people. We want combine harvesters so we don’t have to bend down with cutlasses to do the farming. We want everything you have.”
And;
“Yet the debt relief programme signed off at Gleneagles comes with strict conditions that deny Ghanaians the right to decide how to develop, he says. For example, as part of the deal to have its debt written off Ghana is forbidden from investing in the productive base of its economy; instead it must implement small-scale “poverty reduction” measures that only help people “in incremental ways”, says Mr Andrew.
And;
“”It is completely undemocratic for international financial institutions to tell poor countries how to spend their money. We should give Africa the room to be what it wants to be.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6037077.stm
So the angle of the story from the BBC is that we in the west are still shafting the poor of the world because we attached strings to our aid. Err BBC you never mentioned in that story of yours how the locals of Africa who when freed from the imperial shackles that the liberals say kept them in the gutter went on a killing rampage simply because (and I quote from the BBC article) “We want everything you have.” But instead of working for it like everybody else in the planet they stole it.
So in Uganda the blacks wanted what the Asians had and stole it, In Zimbabwe the blacks wanted what the whites had, they stole it, In Sudan the Arabs wanted what lies beneath the ground where the Blacks live (oil) so they stole it. In Chad the blacks want more of the share of what the white and brown companies paid to drill out of the ground. They stole it. In the Congo the neighbours wanted what under the ground, so they stole it. Africa has become a byword for corruption, nepotism and theft.
That is why now we had strings attached. (Mind you I’m sure I did read somewhere last year that EU aid to Africa can be spent without any strings attached. (I may be wrong there)). We’ve had the huge expensive showcases in Africa in which to alleviate poverty. They haven’t worked. So instead its baby steps for the people of Africa. Until they have in place a political process that actually works on merit and not blood then I’m sure that Africa will stay in the stone age.
So tell me BBC why couldn’t your ace reporter state what I have into the story in which to explain why strings are attached.
P.S
I once bought an album called “No Strings attached”
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000068OPR.01._SS500_SCMZZZZZZZ_V1056715614_.jpg
They can undercut European farmers comfortably and still make a better living. More cash in the economy would encourage all sorts of further investment and diversification.
Actually, it might be a good start if the EU stopped subsidising agricultural exports that are dumped on African markets and destroy local agriculture.
sorry wrong board.
Typical that the Beeb can’t actually state the truth as usual. This is what they should have said:
“The party is best known for campaigning to withdraw Britain from the European Union. Because of this, it won 10 seats in the 2004 European Parliament elections.”
Slanted views as ever!
The quicker we disentangle ourselves from the whole EUarabia project the better. The EU is becoming a Soviet style totalitarian entity that seeks to destroy our nation state. The mass immigration of muslims into Europe is part of the EU’s plan to turn Europe into a huge multicultural experiment with Islam as it’s main religion. Read Brussels Journal blog to see what is happening in Belguim where the Socialist Party are gaining power because of the muslim immigrant vote. The muslims realize that the pro-EU Socialists will keep giving them welfare handouts and allowing more of their co-religionists into the country. Brussels, the so-called “Heart of Europe” , now has more muslim councillers then anywhere else in Europe. Time is running out ……
From the Radio Times web site, a part of BBC Magazines Ltd.
9:50pm – 10:30pm
BBC2
This World: Will Israel Bomb Iran?
…speaks openly for the first time about the threat to Israel posed by Iran’s alleged atomic weapons programme…
They’re always throwing in those little adjectives. The rest of the world has recognised that it exists, why not the BBC?
…has recognised that it exists, why not the BBC?
The rest of the world is deluded. Only the BBC knows the truth. Remember?
The BBC has been conducting a love affair with Iran for some time. The latest is that BBC TV is soon going to be propagandising…. er.. broadcasting there in Farsi, as if its radio service there is not enough.
I believe it was some Chapman BBC bigwig who was waxing eloquent today on the World Service about how wonderfully free of all government influence (including British) this wonderful new service would be. Or maybe I’m mixing him up with Gordon Brown, who also had something to say on the matter. There’s a limit to how much crap my brain can process at any given time.
I’s incredible. There is no limit to self-delusion. In fact, if the BBC is true to form, it’s brand-new Iranian service will be a timid, sugary little exercise in state-sanctioned feelgood bilge designed to lull us into the belief that Iran is just like any other country rather than a foul terrorist theocracy with lunatic genocidal aims.
Get used to it people:
“And now it’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad with the 10 o’clock news!”
New Topic:
Every week, the BBC posts a podcast: “Radio Four Choice”. The title presumably says it all – it’s the BBC’s guide to the programmes they were proud of that week. So here’s what they chose during the last month, in their own words.
8 Sept: Out of the Ashes
“The epidemic of foot and mouth disease that struck Britain five years ago cost the economy £8 billion, delayed the general election and dominated the television news bulletins for weeks with grisly pictures of incinerated animals. But did it change the countryside? Tom Heap examines the legacy of foot and mouth.”
15 Sept: Unknown Warriors
“It’s 40 years since the British Army lifted the colour bar. Henry Bonsu charts the changing attitude of the military to its black and ethnic minority soldiers.”
29 Sept: Letters from Guantanamo
“An exclusive glimpse of the world inside Guantanamo Bay detention centre, told through the letters of a man currently being held there.”
6 Oct: From the Kremlin to Knightsbridge.
“Michael Gillard investigates the key role which London and other UK financial institutions have played in the rise and rise of Russia’s oligarchs.”
I’ve added nothing, subtracted nothing. It just the Radio 4 bods delineating their world-view.
“And now it’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad with the 10 o’clock news!”
disillusioned_german,
You spelt it wrongly It’s MadMood I’monajihad.
29 Sept: Letters from Guantanamo
“An exclusive glimpse of the world inside Guantanamo Bay detention centre, told through the letters of a man currently being held there.”
This interview with Mark Steyn concerning his new book ‘America Alone’ also tells about situation in Guantanamo.
[audio src="http://www.tcsdaily.com/Multimedia/audio/TCS_Daily_Spotlight_Interview_with_Mark_Steyn.mp3" /]
It is likely though that BBC will highlight the suffering of Gitmo inmates and bash Bush as usual.
Iraq
The World at One majors on “Would Gordon Brown have gone into Iraq?”
Is this of real interest outside the luvviedom of the Beeb and the Guardian editorial rooms? We even have John Kampfner on (again) to give the usual antiwar spin. Pity Kampner can’t edit a magazine that anyone wants to read.
Reminds me of Michael Gove’s article in today’s Times:-
“The Beeb seems a bit off-beam
Talking of questions that keep cropping up, John Humphrys was at it again on Monday. Interviewing Margaret Beckett about North Korea, it took him only a couple of minutes before he began arguing that all this trouble was due to Iraq. If only we hadn’t invaded, the North Koreans wouldn’t be letting off bombs. This seemed a mite off-beam, when North Korea has been pursuing a nuclear weapon since 1989. But there are few occasions now when Today presenters don’t run the “if only we hadn’t invaded Iraq” line when questioning everything from Afghanistan to the 7/7 bombings.
I have a challenge for the BBC. Could it produce a proper counter-factual on what would have happened if we had left Saddam in power? What would have happened if we’d left a genocidal torturer with nuclear ambitions in charge of that country, too? These are some questions to which I’m longing to hear the answers . . .”
Sorry, the above should have been on the open thread.
Drinking From Home makes a similar point about Montaquinn’s interview of John Bolton. The BBC’s logic does not follow, because what they are saying a hundred times every day is that things would have been better with Saddam in place. Doesn’t sound so good put that way, does it Beeboids?
A great illustration of what those of us who are a little more aware of the EU, have to put up with.
Anon wrote;
“the clue is in the word “millions”.
Nice try,But you simply moved the goalposts in which to support your stance.
Trying to equate anybody who speaks out against Islamic terrorism doesn’t mean he is wrong, it means he is currently discussing a hot topic around the world;
But if you wish to play the numbers game I can do just that using the BBC as my cornerstone;
United Kingdom 1.5 million Muslims;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6039496.stm
Somalia 9 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6032907.stm
Iran 68 million muslims;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6038932.stm
Syria 15 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6034665.stm
Bangladesh 145 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4161786.stm
Pakistan 160 million Muslims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6038206.stm
The above are but a small selection of the worlds Muslims. Yet each and everyone of those Muslims risks getting killed if he/she leaves the faith. Now they are 1.5 Billion Muslims on this planet. You mentioned State sponsored terrorism. How about religious sponsored terrorism which refuses the right to self determination to everyone of those 1.5 billion people.
Before you play the numbers games it kind of helps if you can count.
P.S
How many Koreans and Chinese did you see up in arms over Charlie and the chocolate factory/Nobel House and Flash Gordon.
I rest my case.
Of course, the BBC is committed to
developing EURABIA.
For an excellent article which
refers to the BBC’s historical role in this, see:-: ‘Fjordman: the
Eurabia code, Part 3’, at-
http://www.dhimmiwatch.org( 9 Oct.).
direct link to the “Eurabia code , part 3”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1481
You cannot be serious. This must be a joke….