The Telegraph headlines with this:
EU may bring back border controls, Angela Merkel suggests
Surely a major, major story especially considering Cameron’s attempts, alleged atytempts, to renegotiate in particular the free movement of people within Europe.
The BBC ignores it in its own news..preferring to give us two front page stories…here the heroic efforts as ‘Migrants breach Hungary razor wire fence‘ and ‘Migrants welcomed at German rail stations’ by heroic, compassionate Germans.
The only mention the Merkel story gets is as part of ‘What the papers say’…
Newspaper headlines: The ‘end of Schengen’, police cuts, and NHS sat-navs
How is it that such a major story doesn’t seem to be worthy of the BBC’s attention despite the fact that it broke yesterday…so they’ve had time to work the angles on this? Asking people to show a passport doesn’t mean there is no freedom of movement for EU citizens, they are still free to move, they just have to carry a passport, not difficult surely?
The fact that Merkel has set aside the Dublin Regulation also seems to have slipped the BBC’s notice…..how is it that the Germans can ignore EU rules on migration and remake the treaty to suit themselves but when Cameron tries to renegotiate he is chasing rainbows?
Seems we could just ignore EU rules on free movement when the situation demands it, such as in a crisis as we are in now, and start to impose far more rigorous border controls for all…….I believe the EU treaty even allows the suspension of free movement in times of crisis…if only Cameron had the will to do it.
On the Today programme Sarah Montague (08:10) was giving it the full Mother Teresa as she interviewed Nigel Farage. The BBC are hyping the fact that UKIP has set up its own ‘no to Europe’ campaign and the BBC are keen to suggest Farage is ‘divisive’ and to note that the No Campaign is split…..no such emphasis for the Yes campaign which also has different groups supporting it.
Then we got onto immigration and Montague set abot Farage asking about refugees. Farage wanted to know how many millions of refugees Europe was supposed to take but Montague snapped ‘Forget that’ and suggested Farage should have a moral obligation to the refugees ‘from Syria’.
That constant narrative from Montague, that these were refugees ‘from Syria’ is misleading, intentionally so. Montague must know that probably none of these refugees come directly from Syria, most come from refugee camps where they are already safe but then decide to head to Europe because they want jobs and homes and all the services that they see the West can provide them with…they have become economic migrants.
Ironically Montague then started barracking Farage and demanded to know how many refugees ‘from Syria’ he would think acceptable to let in…..curious how she wasn’t interested in the numbers before, in fact shut Farage up when he raised the subject.
Just how many ‘refugees’ should Europe take? Especially as Farage pointed out the EU’s definition of a refugee is so wide that just about anyone could qualify…and if they step foot in Europe they can pretty much be sure they will stay…which is a huge incentive to others to try….as they do in an ‘exodus of biblical proportions’ as Farage so rightly calls it.
I guess nothing has changed at the BBC:
Liberal BBC out of touch on migration, says its ex-director: Former head of TV news believes corporation is not reflecting views of its audience
The voters, however, know the truth. They witness it with their own eyes, as communities struggle to absorb 300,000 new incomers every year.
Yet the politicians ignore this truth — further alienating ordinary people who, for years, were informed by the BBC that it was ‘bigoted’ to be worried about the unprecedented and historic levels of immigration encouraged by New Labour.
Other politicians who wish to admit refugees are never asked about the numbers by BBC interviewers.
How many would Corbyn or Burnham admit I wonder?
Unlimited?
ALL, AS THEY ARE ALL LABOUR VOTERS.
Not necessarily. As their percentage of the population grows they will start forming their own parties. They have the huge advantage over UKIP that they tend to to be confined to small geographic areas. Put another way. UKIP can win 12.6% of the national vote and only one seat. They only have to win first past the post in an electorate to win it.
Another possible undesirable consequence may be vote agents selling the community’s vote to the highest bidder.
BBC was presenting the breach of the razor wire fence as a triumph and proof that you can’t keep the “migrants” out. We are nudged to the conclusion that there is no point in trying, let them all in. Bias ? Surely not !
Actually, the only conclusion that I could draw from that report is that the Hungarians should also be erecting machine gun nests every 100 yards along theor border. But unlike the BBC, I am not a defeatist, liberal quitter who hates my country.
The little references to the BBC, as in the last paragraph quote in the header, are exactly what we need to see more of.
Those little throw away negative references slowly build up in the sub conscious and eat away in people’s minds at the concept of the wonderful BBC.
On Dateline London (BBC World) at w/e a harridan called Rachel Shabi, an absolutely over-confident leftie described as ‘Middle East Expert’, was appalled that some British people did not want to allow all the approaching hordes across the Channel and into Britain – and of course there was no dissent among the panellists. The dreaded Jasmin Alibhai Brown was cheering her on of course, with effusive praise for the nutters that are going across the channel to walk among them and distribute gifts and encouragement. It is the complete lack of a dissenting viewpoint that is so wrong.
Alan, you report that we are struggling to absorb 300,000 ( illegal and/or unwanted) immigrants but I’d suggest that the real figure we should be concerned about is probably double that because the 300,000 figure is the net number. I think that about a similar number of people leave our country each year and I’d suggest that the majority are proper, indigenous members of our nation. So,there a potential 600,000 unwanteds flooding into our country.
My thougts as well. The true figure is 300,000 + those who left.
I am in favour of allowing in any immigrant, on the sole condition that they are housed and fed and looked after in the homes of the vile, unpatriotic, British hating liberal lefties, who want them here. They should pay for them, look after them, provide medical treatment and education for them and their kids and be liable for very very long life prison sentences when those migrants finally abscond, and for any crime that such immigrants commit on British soil. IF the lefty idiots who want no borders can agree to that, then I am all for it. Every single lefty idiot that wants to remove those already wide open floodgates, to increase the swarming flood of foreign criminals, thugs, terrorists, murderers, rapists, conmen and scroungers that would not otherwise get into this country, should be very very personally responsible for what they are trying to inflict on our country.
I do not believe that there is a single solitary genuine refugee amongst any of the hordes of economic scroungers flooding our country. ALL of them should have legally applied for asylum LONG before they arrived at our borders. Most of them are not poor and should have applied for a visa and tried to emigrate to the UK legally. The fact that they are trying to unlawfully break in to our country, (and shortly thereafter our homes and business properties) proves that NONE of them have any right at all to be here.
The fact that they are trying to unlawfully break in to our country, (and shortly thereafter our homes and business properties) proves that NONE of them have any right at all to be here.
Which makes it an invasion. The fact that they dont have machine guns and artillery, is beside the point.
BBC website shows a photo of “migrants” in Hungary waving their train tickets. But the BBC does not seem to ask them where they got the tickets.