Our network of posts in Turkey, including the British Embassy in Ankara and our Consulate General in Istanbul, develop and maintain relations between the UK and Turkey. We work on a wide range of issues including Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, the economy, energy policy and international security.
We have a dedicated team working on projects to improve Turkey’s prospects of joining the EU.
I haven’t watched Question Time with Cameron undoubtedly peddling his alarmism, lies and anti-Leave vitriol but it’s interesting to compare the BBC’s lacklustre and very short analysis about their own programme with that of the Telegraph, the Mail and the Spectator…all of whom say Cameron took a pounding on immigration and his negotiations with the EU…the BBC doesn’t spell this out and downplays, as always during the referendum, the fact that he seems to have been hammered.
The Mail:
Cameron hammered AGAIN by voters over his failure to tackle immigration in BBC Question Time special
The Telegraph:
The Prime Minister is being taken to task by audience members over how watertight his EU renegotiation deal is – in particular his migration welfare changes.
But what happens if someone vetos it, asks one audience member? “They’ve all agreed, they won’t,” responds Cameron, triggering groans from those present.
Immigration is up, with the PM getting grilled on his 100k target
Cameron came in to Number 10 pledging to get net migration below 100,000 a year but has repeatedly missed his target. In fact in Tory 2015 manifesto, it was downgraded from a “target” to an “ambition”.
Question Time audience firing tough question at Cameron
Cameron is getting a rough ride from audience members in the early exchanges here.
One voter asked whether his “Brexit Budget” – which warned of whopping tax rises and austerity cuts if we leave the EU – was just an attempt to dish out “punishment for voters”.
The Spectator:
Pumped-up Cameron takes pummelling on immigration
Q: Why haven’t you controlled non EU immigration
A: “Its difficult” (real answer, we have absolutely no intention of controlling immigration, EU or otherwise)
Time to go Dave
Strange that while Dave was pumping up Churchill’s heroic memory – fighting for Europe etc, etc – he overlooked adding that while Winnie thought European union an excellent idea with direct benefits for the continent, he did not include us, the UK, in those plans simply because he knew that politically and geographically we were not part of Europe and we had an extensive Empire to secure our future.
Even he had no concept at that time of US intentions for the destruction of that Empire, though with his knowledge of history perhaps he should have.
Correct Beltane- As Sir Winstom Churchill did say ‘We are with Europe but not of it, We are linnked but not compromised, We are interested and associated but not absorbed, If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.’ So we should all be saying. What the H was Boris Johnson talking about as supposed leader of the Leave Campaign, when he inferred that he was a supporter of all immigration including immigration from Turkey, including Muslims-or was I dreaming? And why should Johnson and Gove take such umbridge with the UKIP posters, afterall they reflect exactly what the propective situation will be for Europe/Britian if we remain, make no doubt of it. Farage is still the only spokesman cabable of really telling how it is with the undemocratic EU and how it will be if we stay. The voters will turn their backs on all the hard won Freedoms our fathers and forfathers died for if they vote to Remain inside a crumbling despotic elitist shit hole.
The sad fact is that today’s politicians regard the truth as an inconvenience, something to be avoided for fear of agendas being disrupted and apple carts upended. Boris Johnson’s current pseudo statesman-like illogicality, Corbyn’s latest faux pas, Gove’s ‘shudder’ – bet he whooped at Saatchi’s unemployment poster – and Warsi’s contrived ‘defection’ all examples of the duplicity within their own minds. They no longer recognize reality, just the message.
And if the cannonisation of an achingly PC non-entity – a woman of the people with Thames houseboat and Welsh cottage to provide Guardian approved credentials – should ultimately affect the outcome, that too will simply add another nail to the coffin of our contrived ‘democracy’.
I doubt if Churchill would have had a great deal of time for Cameron. I certainly don’t think he would have recognised him as a Conservative, not even close.
Just a thought , but maybe the Turks joining the EU would be the best thing for the project .
The Turk lorry drivers had a no nonsense attitude to the countries they were passing through . Stabbing thieves in the former commie bloc was nothing to them . The Mafia might try to terrorfie them by throwing flares onto their trailers from bridges but the Turks tried to reply in kind .
The Turks will join the EU for the trade and the money. But f^€¥ the brethren of man business .
Sorry Alan, but I’m getting pissed off with the BBBC insistence that the BBC remain biased on the EU referendum. Even Peter Hitchens conceded that the BBC were showing impartiality!
“I underestimated the BBC, which has, perhaps thanks to years of justified and correct criticism from people such as me, taken its duty of impartiality seriously.”
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/european-union/
You’ve already admitted you haven’t watched the Question Time special with Cameron, and you’re already accusing the BBC of being biased.
How can the BBC be biased in this instance when we can all watch Cameron get completed annihilated on iPlayer for at least 7 days? Even Dimbleby got some applause when he posed a difficult question to Cameron.
Just as an artist is not required to pass judgement on their own material, so the BBC are not required to expand in any form on their own production. That is for US to do!
In my opinion, the BBC are showing a surprising amount of impartiality regarding the EU referendum. It makes a refreshing change.
Yes Edward, that would explain why Just THREE PERCENT Of The BBC’s EU Topic Guests Are Eurosceptic, wouldn’t it.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/10/report-bbc-displays-clear-significant-anti-brexit-bias/
Don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your prejudice.
Yes, and if you look closely at that article you link to, you will find that the 3.2% figure you quote was a measure taken over 10 years! Not a good yardstick when we have only known about the referendum for just over 1 year.
“Don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of your prejudice.”
Was you looking in the mirror when you said that? If you weren’t, then you need to!
Nigel Farage was a lone voice 10 years ago. The BBC are duty-bound to give exposure to the main political parties and UKIP were a very small part of that share of the political landscape.
Since then they have exceeded all expectations. After all, it was UKIP that inadvertently forced Cameron to offer a referendum which Cameron now regrets!
So why don’t you actually read the stuff you’re linking to and make an educated assessment of the facts you’re so obviously ignoring.
Edward: “If you look closely at that article you link to, you will find that the 3.2% figure you quote was a measure taken over 10 years! Not a good yardstick when we have only known about the referendum for just over 1 year.”
So your argument is that it’s been 9 straight years of overwhelming bias, followed by 1 year of balance? (At least, according to you, on the basis of no presented evidence.) So that’s OK then? I am sure you don’t need me to tell you how ridiculous that sounds.
And (mirror mirror) if you look closely at the article I linked to, you will find it explains why this long-term bias is precisely so significant:
As Mr Bourne says: “With a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU scheduled for 23 June 2016, this relative bias by omission could be very important indeed. Within academic media theory, there is a line of reasoning that media influence on audiences is not immediate but occurs more through a continual process of repeated arguments – the ‘drip-drip-drip’ effect.”
And there is also a current example in the article which you selectively ignore:
More recently, a January 2013 edition of Newsnight, the BBC’s flagship news program, was devoted entirely to the Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement of an in/out referendum. Viewers would have been forgiven for assuming that a balance would be struck between those advocating remaining and those who wanted to leave the EU, but in fact 18 speakers in favour of remaining were set against just one who wanted to leave: Nigel Farage.
“So why don’t you actually read the stuff you’re
linking tocriticizing and make an educated assessment of the facts you’re so obviously ignoring.”There, fixed that for you. You’re welcome.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/10/report-bbc-displays-clear-significant-anti-brexit-bias/
“So your argument is that it’s been 9 straight years of overwhelming bias, followed by 1 year of balance?”
YES!!!
At last – you see the light!!!
I’m not here to defend the BBC – I’m here to expose BBC bias – but I also believe the BBC should be praised where they show true impartiality. I’m not a BBC witch hunter.
Good grief! Any criticism of Alan (or should that be Allah?) and the BBBC jihadis come to behead me!
I’m sure Alan can fight his own battles.
Edward: “it’s been 9 straight years of overwhelming [BBC pro-EU] bias, followed by 1 year of balance”
Laughing so hard I almost cried. The whole point of the study (as quoted above) is that the drip-drip-drip of the bias over 10 years has had a cumulative effect, but you simply ignore this and carry on.
And you also simply ignore the case quoted above of clear bias, right at the start of the referendum campaign.
Instead, you selectively misread the study (a crime you initially accused me of) to try to pick fault with the selected passages you pick and chose 🙄
Trying to substitute your own theory in its place, without addressing the actual arguments of the study, and without any substantiating evidence or logic of your own doesn’t wash.
(And saying “I think the BBC isn’t biased” is simply an opinion, to which you are – needless to say – entitled, but it isn’t an argument, or evidence.)
“Good grief! Any criticism of Alan (or should that be Allah?) and the BBBC jihadis come to behead me!”
Oh please. Nice try to equate robust argument with Islamic terrorism. You enjoy our democracy but then denigrate those who would argue against you, and instead stick up for those who would destroy it. Pathetic.
“I’m not here to defend the BBC – I’m here to expose BBC bias”
Laughing so hard again, Edward. Go on then – be my guest.
In space no one can hear you laugh.
You are right Edward I can’t hear you laugh.
“I’m not here to defend the BBC – I’m here to expose BBC bias”
Well Ed, you are not doing a good job of ‘exposing’ it are you ?
You need to get out more taffman. It’s 1am and you’re hanging around here waiting to talk to someone.
So Ed why are you ‘hanging’ about here ?
Because I work shifts. I just got home from work. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself!
‘I’m getting pissed off’
Seems to happen a lot. But you do have options (denied live TV watchers in the UK) at least.
One is suggested, and you may have answered your own dilemma in that sentence.
Jo Cox’s murder has sapped the momentum Leave had last week. Leave may feel that they should back off from the immigration issue to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the far right. This would be a mistake, the Referendum has largely become an issue about immigration because of the EU’s pig headiness on insisting that a free trade zone must have free movement. Immigration remains Leaves best card and they must continue to play it.
Dave on QT was given every chance to say he would veto Turkish membership, he declined to say it explicitly. This tells anyone what they need to know on this. I read on BBC website that this week is Refugee week, so I think the Beeb will inadvertently provide some help here.