So you’re a BBC news editor faced with a choice…the pro-EU mandarin, Ivan Rogers, has gone all Kamikazi, and you’re reporting the aftermath of his suicide attack on the Brexiteers. Do you report his critics’ or his defenders’ words? You being a BBC employee naturally know what’s in our best interest and shape the news to present Rogers as the telling-truth-to-power victim of the Brexit thought-police. The reality? A pro-EU civil servant went public with a hugely anti-Brexit message with the intent of putting pressure on the government to comply with his own pro-EU views…and the BBC were there to help as they were given the exclusive scoop…wonder why. Possibly because they are the most powerful, and pro-EU, media platform out there and one guaranteed to give Rogers a favourable platform from which to peddle his pro-EU spiel. How right he was.
Today we had some interviews on the Today programme….on one we had Lord Marland backing Rogers and telling us how the civil service was incapable of negotiating Brexit and Sir Robert Cooper telling us there is a policy vacuum in government.
Then later we had Matts Persson, a Cameron EU advisor, on. Interestingly he said that the headlines [the BBC of course the worse culprit ed.] had been very unfair, that is, misleading, after Rogers’ resignation…They had reported Rogers’ claim that the government was ‘muddled’ and lacked the negotiating skills but both those claims were wrong….planning, as you might expect, was ‘far advanced’ and there was good expertise in the civil service. Not only that but the negotiating position was very clear.
Not at all the message the BBC wanted to peddle and indeed they didn’t. In the follwoing news bulletins which messages do you think the BBC news editor chose? Not Persson’s but both Marland and Cooper’s negative take on Brexit. Persson doesn’t get a mention at all anymore.
The BBC has also chosen not to report the essential point about Rogers’ not being fit to lead the Brexit negotiations…not only is he a dyed-in-the-wool pro-EU mandarin but he lacks the will to tackle EU reform. He was the major stumbling block to negotiating the reforms Cameron claimed he wanted. Rogers said we could not get much so don’t ask for much…a classically bad negotiating stance….so we ask for little and get, of course, even less.
So in effect Rogers empowered the Brexit vote by failing to secure major reforms that were promised. Even more ironically his departure, the departure of a key, for the Remainers, pro-EU person at the Brexit negotiations, was the result of his doom and gloom being reported by the pro-EU BBC….a feat of which they were boasting as he announced his resignation….lol.
All that smacks of very bad judgement, both politically and tactically…he placed himself in the firing line, and the BBC, thinking they were helping to undermine Brexit, reported with glee his words that Brexit would take 10 years and may not even happen. He completely misjudged how we should negotiate with Brussels on the reforms, proably coloured by his own pro-EU feelings…it is likely he didn’t actually want any reforms. Not only that but he was also the one who advised May not to promise EU migrants in the UK that they could stay regardless…and for which May got enormous amount of flak, not least from the BBC.
The BBC of course doesn’t highlight those major flaws in his CV…look at this report in the immediate wake of his resignation….no mention of his damaging role in the ‘reforms’ and no mention that he is very pro-EU…
UK’s ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers resigns
Strangely the BBC totally ignores what Tim Shipman said in his book about Rogers…remember Tim Shipman’s book? The one that the BBC relentlessly once reported when they thought it had negative things to say about Brexit? No so keen now to dip into the book for quotes…such as this…all pretty damning for him…
Tim Shipman reveals in his unrivalled referendum book All Out War, Cameron’s aides blame Rogers for blocking them from seeking a better deal on immigration and the ECJ:
‘We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers,’ one Cameron adviser said. ‘They were status quo. They were happy to take “No” for an answer, happy to believe things weren’t possible when they could be possible. I’ve lost count of the number of times Ivan threatened to resign.’ The politicos say Rogers was aggressive in dismissing their arguments, and went over their heads to Cameron: ‘He would send emails that were the stuff of legend, saying why didn’t we know anything? We were just politicos, we didn’t understand.’ Another aide said Rogers’ emails were ‘notorious’.
Rogers also clashed with the special advisers over their desire to include reforms of the European Court of Justice in the renegotiation. ‘Korski had a long-running battle with officials saying that we needed to do something, and he kept getting told that it was impossible to do something,’ a Number 10 source said. A range of proposals were put forward, ranging from new rules on the selection of judges to proposals for the EC] to get out of lower-level decisions. Their advocates believe the plan would have allowed Britain to get a serious review of the court on the agenda. It was rejected by officials over the summer.
The BBC does bring us Rogers’ resignation letter in full...with the BBC own selective musings and annotations inserted where they think we can benefit from their insight and perception. Naturally the points selected are negative for Brexit and the BBC’s own interpretation ramps that up, sexing up the negative and essentially inventing meanings and intent to the words….and what you don’t get is any analysis from the BBC that actually challenges any of Rogers’ assertions….the BBC just accepts his claim that the government has no idea about Brexit and that there are no people skilled enough to negotiate it in the UK….as said above they in fact completely ignore anyone who suggests otherwise and doesn’t adopt the correct narrative….and whilst parsing every word that seemingly criticises the government the BBC doesn’t bother with his final words to his fellow civil servants…
I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.
Why would he need to tell them that? If they are impartial civil servants they would surely do their job regardless of whether they voted Remain or not….but seemingly Rogers thinks that might not be the case…which of course, ironically, is why he himself had to go….a point the BBC seems to avoid reminding us of preferring instead to ‘report’ the Remain camp’s ‘concern’ about Rogers resignation [which of course is very telling in itself].
The Telegraph today had a good follow up story on that which blames the Civil-service Mandarins for dragging their feet. This is worth quoting:
Our shell-shocked Civil Service is simply not up to the job on Brexit
We should be grateful to Sir Ivan Rogers for accidentally reminding us that we need wholesale reform of our broken Civil Service, since the cultural chasm between Whitehall and the public has grown dangerously large.
For Sir Ivan, now thankfully our outgoing ambassador to the EU, and many other mandarins of his ilk, the barbarians truly are at the gates. They now mostly realise that Brexit is going to happen, but remain desperate to find ways to blunt its implementation.
In places, Sir Ivan’s resignation email reads like a parody, a textbook illustration of the dangers of creating a permanent ruling class. At times, one could even be forgiven for believing that he saw himself as a Platonic philosopher-king, entrusted to guard the guardians and to keep those pesky politicians and voters in line, ensuring that they don’t deviate from expert orthodoxy…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/shell-shocked-civil-service-simply-not-job-brexit/
But in the Telegraph Newspaper paper edition,(Alistair Heath writes) writes a lot further and states that the majority of civil-service Manderins never thought this would happen, as they were largely recruited under Tony Blair’s ‘purge’ of the ‘conservative’ looking civil-service. They are all now of the ‘liberal left’ towards EU legislation and it’s UK implementation, this has all changed! So its expected a number other of civil-service heads are expected to follow this resignation if they cannot see any further than the EU. They have become EU poodles, it seems. So its time for new breed of dog. Something with a bit more bite!
Blair is back.
blair is back………….Unfortunately and one wonders who’s hand besides branson’s is up blair’s backside telling him what to do
A fellow local brexiteer summed it up perfectly – Was he the UK Ambassador to the EU or the EU Ambassador to the UK?
It seems some “swamp draining” needs to be done in Whitehall to get rid of the rest of the Blair/Brown plants now doing as much as they can to damage the UK.
I tried , I really did to watch the BBC TV News at Ten. Impossible really. Trump is bad and a Russian agent. Putin is an evil monster and as for Brexit. That is just a silly fantasy of the little people. Sir Ivan or whoever knows what is right and proper and if it is the last thing we do (hopefully it will be ) we at the progressive BBc will oppose Brexit literally all the way ( OK so SOL has influenced us all it seems) .
As SOL would say Our BBC is like our Jeremy beyond criticism and literally infallible.
I would say the BBC is like the Titanic……unsinkable
If an ambassador is someone sent abroad to lie on behalf of his country, Ivan Rogers was definitely the EU’s man in London. The mendacity seems to come naturally enough, but he plainly doesn’t think of the United Kingdom as “his country”. In fact, dyed-in-the-wool Euro-loon that he is, he probably doesn’t even think of the UK as a country, as such, at all, because Brussels long ago divided its empire into “regions”. [Incidental note to Nicola Sturgeon: to Brussels, “Scotland” is the name of a “region”.]
“An Ambassador is a man who is sent to lie abroad for his country”.
The joke is that ‘lie’ means both ‘live’/’reside’ and ‘tell untruths’.
On the website (and Newsnight) the Beeb are keeping up the flow of civil service anti Brexit views with an in interview with Jonathan Faull (no, me neither) who manages in the Sir Humphrey tradition to say pretty much nothing. If this is the calibre of our top civil servants, god help us!
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38523368
This character Faull’s demented reasoning is worth listening to because it shows how corrosive it has been for the UK to be in the EU. No doubt the BBC, in it’s naivety, thinks we are all going to be full of remorse when we hear Faull’s arrogant threats. In fact the opposite is true and no Briton worth his salt is going to be cowed by this modern version of Lord Haw Haw.
Faull is said to have worked at the Commission for 38 years and to have just retired. Let’s say he’s 60 because no one at the Commission has to work beyond 60 given its generous pension scheme ( supplemented by tax free salary). That means Faull joined the Commission in 1978 at age 22. Quite how he achieved that I don’t know but clearly he’s gone completely native.
If he thinks the likes of Norway don’t buy their way into the single market, then he’s delusional. They are in no way participating in a project because they have no say in making the rules . Frankly the UK should dismiss such an
option immediately. What is so difficult to understand about the word ‘leave’?
Of course Norway participates in making the rules, most of which come from global bodies; the EU is merely the message boy for them. Norway has its own seat at the top global tables, alongside the EU. And so will we, soon.
Read eureferendum.com every day to get the real facts.
There is going to be a three day conference at the University of Cork on “Has Israel the right to exist.” Southampton University wanted to do this two years ago , but after furious protests by the Jewish community the idea was abandoned .I expect there will be many BBC presenters and correspondents from the BBC who have not gone to work for Al Jazeera who will be only to happy to oppose the motion.
This week has been an Isreal bashers dream. The BBC has been in its element. A former chief rabbi was sent to prison for corruption.Netanyahu was questioned by police on bribery allegations. A soldierr who shot dead an incapacitated terrorist was found guilty of manslaughter. Yes the BBC which covers every aspect of anything that goes wrong in Israel as if it was even more important than regional news in the UK, NO other foreign country in the world has this coverage on the BBC as Israel does .
But it does not occur to the BBC with its schadenfreud what a remarkable country Israel is.
Because Israel is a democracy the BBC and the rest of the world media are allowed to see and report on the good, bad and ugly. We see Israel’s democracy in action by rabbi’s being sent to jail. Soldiers being found guilty in court . Benjamin Netanyahu being questioned on
bribery allegations. Upholding the rule of law in Israel happens in the face of risks that
other countries rarely need to contemplate.The BBC can gloat on the problems in Israel. Meanwhile 500,000 are still dead in Syria.
“There is going to be a three day conference at the University of Cork on “Has Israel the right to exist.””
The whole of Israel must be terrified that the outcome will be “no”. I’m sure they’re already making relocation arrangements, just in case.
Perhaps those Israeli Nobel Prize-winning scientists will move to Ireland to improve its record, and change its reliance upon somewhat more subjective achievements in literature.
Marion,
You can be sure that Israelis will be the only refugees not allowed into Europe !
Very true.
Seriously though, we know that they’re made of sterner stuff and won’t be leaving.
You can’t vote for or against “Has Israel the right to exist?” Only discuss whether the answer is Yes or No.
Ivan Rogers was installed into the civil service by Tony Blair with many other high ranking left wing civil servants. The civil service has been politicized for a long time now since the eighties, and it is becoming apparent at long last the results of ‘New labour’s’ undemocratic meddling with our institutions.
If the civil service cannot ( will not ) deliver ‘leave’ then threaten to replace the lot, be interesting how many put their jobs before their ideology!
One of David Cameron’s myriad failings was his refusal even to attempt to clean out the Augean Stables of the civil service. Not only did he preserve whole departments which had no need to exist, such as DECC and DfID, but he sided with the entrenched ideologues at Education against his own reformist ministers.
The ridiculously bloated FCO has two overlapping cultures: arabism and europhilia (both anti-Jewish, as if that has a place in proper governance). Since the loss of empire, in a computerised age, when the Foreign Office slavishly subordinates itself to Brussels, what do all those FCO civil servants do all day?
At the Treasury, George Osborne had every opportunity to make sense of the British revenue system, but succeeded only in complicating it even further; a significant part of what we pay in tax goes to paying all the superfluous apparatchiks in the Treasury (and don’t expect anything to improve under the three-days-dead-haddock, Philip Hammond).
At the Ministry of Defence, practical expenditure on the armed forces has been cut relentlessly for years. Blair and Brown were chopping away at the services when British personnel were actually in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The process continued under Cameron and shows no sign of stopping. Pretty soon, British taxpayers will be paying more for the MoD bureaucracy than for actual defence.
Ivan Rogers’ departure was only a start, but it’s still a start.
Not only bloated bureaucracy, there are still many more captains in the RN than ships!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465608/Royal-Navys-260-captains-just-19-warships-Defence-cuts-15-times-commanding-officers-vessels.html
I can understand that because admirals stay on the active list for life there are 41 as against 40, iirc, fighting ships, but captains?
I shouldn’t be surprised if the RAF has more Air Marshals than aeroplanes by now, too.
The British civil service has needed reform for at least forty years .
Out should go all the secrecy , except in exceptional cases such as security , police or defence .
Out should go their self serving “confidential” ( for that read secret ) advice to ministers . What they advocate as government policy we want to know .
Out should go their self reverence , and a realisation they are public servants should replace their anti democratic machinations .
In should be the acknowledgement that taxpayers in the UK pay their wages .
In should be putting the interests of the UK and all its legal citizens first , above world peace , the EU project , Bilderburgers , and especially our interests above their own self centred interest .
Out should go all the indolent , deceitful grade 5 and above , and a new lot who are loyal to us in the UK put in their place .
Look at what they call their trade union – the First Division Association . Such is the lots arrogance . It should be called Fithed Column .