We are warned today that over-cooked potatoes are dangerous to our health, however what they don’t warn us about are the threats posed to our democracy by the half-baked thoughts of half-witted BBC presenters.
Just heard Douglas Caerswell talking to Adrian Chiles suggesting that though we should respect this judgement it clearly indicates that if judges are to make such political decisions then perhaps they should be appointed in a way that ensures at the minimum they aren’t ideologically opposed to the government in office.
Chiles jumped in and told us he thought that was a very ‘Trumpian’ idea…’Trumpian’ being a bad thing of course. Caerswell had to educate him on the American system where the Supreme Court and Federal judges are appointed by government…and have been for hundreds of years. Then again perhaps it is very Trumpian where ideologically minded judges are not allowed to over-ride the will of the People. Funny how the BBC would be horrifed if anyone used ‘gay’ to suggest anything was bad but have now adopted ‘Trump’ as a trigger word for signalling disapproval indicating that something is corrupt, immoral or evil.
Caerswell then radically suggested that perhaps the BBC might properly inform the public of what Brexit means and that it might present some positive news and views about Brexit. Chiles dismissed it, as is the BBC’s wont, by saying Caerswell obviously hadn’t been listening to the BBC. Well, we have and Caerswell is quite right. There is no positive news coming out of the BBC about Brexit, it is all doom and gloom and economic armageddon….only this morning we had the Today show trying to paint a free trade deal with the US for agricultural products as a license to poison us with growth hormones and chlorine washed chickens…Mishal Husain somehow thinking washing a chicken in very diluted chlorine wash is worse than swimming in a chlorinated swimming pool and ingesting the water there as you inevitably do…seems she just had an agenda and was sticking to it whatever the evidence really was.
The sheer ignorance of Chiles and his blatant bias is always a joy to behold…he is completely unfit to run any debate on the big issues, perhaps he could get a job as a Supreme Court judge, he seems ideally suited.
It would be quite useful, and unusual, if the BBC were to challenge Gina Miller’s claim that this was all about process and democracy when she knows full well that Parliament is jam-packed with MP’s opposed to Brexit. She knows they may well pay lip service to Brexit and vote to trigger Article 5o to give the appearance that they respect the will of the people but that they will then demand a say in what Brexit looks like…as Ken Clarke alluded to this morning…the real opposition begins then as they seek to keep us in the Single Market and the Custom’s Union…which of course means we must keep freedom of movement..hence Brexit is finished and we remain in the EU. Miller’s claim that this is about democracy is a lie. Shame that the BBC, now apparently so intent on rooting out false news and lies, seems not so bothered about this whopper.
There may become a time in the near future when there will be many by-elections.
These by-elections must produce the correct, that is BrexitMax, decision.
If not popular action must remove all unsuitable candidates in successive, subsequent, by-elections, until we DO have BrexitMax.
The BBC and their comrades have craftily clouded the debate with the terms ‘Soft Brexit’ and ‘Hard Brexit’ when it is in fact just Brexit.
Soft Brexit is neither in nor out (though it’s mainly in), and would mean us keeping free movement, legal subsidiarity to the European Courts of Justice and continuing to pay billions to Brussels each year – in fact, all those things the 52% rejected and which led them to vote ‘leave’.
Those less informed, and especially those who implicitly trust the BBC, are being misled big time.
‘Fake news’* anybody?
*Includes news and reports where crucial facts are omitted – a commonly purposed occurrence on the BBC.
Where have you got this rubbish idea from, that says staying in the single market means submitting to the ECJ and not controlling our own borders. ?
This is not the first time you have spouted this stupid mantra; I think it’s about time you got real with the facts.
Using the EEA/EFTA route means that we are OUT; I repeat out, of the EU. We retain control of our borders and we are not subject to the ECJ. This is the one and only way to leave the EU and keep the country on an even keel. And if you think the EEA/EFTA way is no good, we can leave by just giving 12 months notice.
It’s called the Liechstenstein solution. Read eureferendum.com every day to keep up with the real facts.
There is no way May can get an FTA in less than 2 years. She’s stupid and wrong, and time will tell.
In a number of places but most recently in the Telegraph Business section in an article by Liam Halligan:
As members (of the SM) our laws stay under ECJ jurisdiction and the multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels continue. We’d also be unable to control of EU migrants living and working in the UK….
I don’t have a link as I don’t have subscriber access but I did cut the article out and that is what I have quoted from.
When the likes of Sturgeon and Fallon demand we stay in the Single Market that is what they mean as it still satisfies their internationalist, no borders agenda – bung in the other two commitments and it’s ‘Soft Remain’ as with those continuing ties they will forever be able to nibble away at the semi-Brexit position in the hope with a push, skip and a jump we will go back in.
Then there’s this from a Prof of EU law:
Single market rules require the free movement from one EU member country to another of goods, people, services and capital (the so-called ‘four freedoms’).
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-single-market/
HOWEVER, I do accept your point and other than reading of it as a possibility in Christopher Booker’s column in the Sunday Telegraph (I won’t ask if you have any connection) I haven’t seen EEA/EFTA discussed in any depth. I will look into it more, and here’s a start from the IFS (see p2):
If the UK were able to join the European Economic Area (EEA), we would enjoy near-full
membership of the Single Market but likely be obliged to accept EU regulations and free
movement of people and make a budgetary contribution. Obtaining membership of the
Single Market without meeting these conditions would be unprecedented.
Beyond the EEA, the UK could seek a type of ‘free trade agreement’ (FTA) with the EU. This
would likely mean better ‘access’ relative to a situation with no agreement by substantially
reducing, and potentially eliminating, tariffs on goods. Some trade agreements, such as
the forthcoming EU–Canada deal, also reduce some non-tariff barriers on services, though
such deals are rare, harder to agree and stop well short of the kind of service access
conferred by membership of the Single Market.
Click to access R119%20-%20The%20EU%20Single%20market%20-%20Final.pdf
Every time I see Mr Chiles’ name it reminds me of how he and that fat lump Jo Brand complained about Carol Thatcher using the word golliwog in the green room. I don’t think she’s been on the sodding bbc since yet these two talentless wastes of space seem to be guaranteed endless TV exposure. One day people like Mr Chiles will get their just desserts.
Chiles is of no importance at all so even giving him a moment’s attention is too much.
They are all “Beauties”.
How come such an unattractive, badly spoken, biased lefty such as Chiles was ever able to get a job in the BBC in the first place ?……………..Oh hang on…..”unattractive, badly spoken, biased lefty”……he qualifies doesn’t he. My mistake.
Toast & Potatoes! That’s the problem I tell you!
The sky is falling!
Chiles, who really isn’t the brightest bunny in the warren, is married to Jane Garvey, she of “the corridors of Broadcasting House were strewn with empty champagne bottles – I will always remember that”
Labour clowns together.
Wikipedia gives Adrian Chiles as having been married to Jane Garvey from 1998 to 2009. Chiles looks thick and is thick, completely out of his depth with anything more serious; whereas I think Garvey has more about her and has on occasion brought a bit of balance to the Left-wing ‘Woman’s Hour’, correcting Leftist contributors who expected to be able to take free shots at Tories or people with conservative views on some matters.
Two of the most irritating regional accents imposed on us by the BBC, coupled to a total lack of brainpower in both instances- Adrian Chiles and Steph MCGovern. Out of their depth most of the time.
It would be quite useful, and unusual, if the BBC were to challenge Gina Miller’s claim that this was all about process and democracy when she knows full well that Parliament is jam-packed with MP’s opposed to Brexit.
The BBC might also ask why Ms Miller has suddenly found an interest in democracy when it can be clearly demonstrated that the EU is the opposite of democratic. And why she showed no interest when EU laws were being passed into our system via the Royal Prerogative and Parliament didn’t get a sniff.
Funny, last time I posted on here about Gina Miller’s True and Fair Foundation charity I found this on its website:
We create joyous experiences through relationships based on respect, understanding, humility, honest conversations, friendship and a common purpose.
….which I felt explained the reluctance of the BBC to hold her to account.
However, that sentence has since disappeared. Coincidence or magic? You decide.
johnnythefish
….which I felt explained the reluctance of the BBC to hold her to account.
However, that sentence has since disappeared. Coincidence or magic? You decide.
Looks like the site was read by someone with more than one brain cell capable of intelligent thought saw that and realised that could drop both the BBC and gina miller deeply into the dodo. Next time gina millar or her staff should engage brain before hitting “Enter or post” and read through it
I think that one thing that needs urgently reforming is the House of Lords. It is not representative. It is interesting to note that the United States initially had an appointed senate & didn’t allow its members to be chosen by popular vote until 1917. If getting any Brexit bill through the House of Lords is necessary it could create problems, the government does not have a majority there.
If the House of Lords was replaced by an elected second chamber it would be interesting to see which way the people would vote.
Chiles and even more so Nicky (gameshow) Campbell fit into a sort that my dad used to describe by saying ………..”never trust a man with a clipboard”……….while there were men with clipboards in those days ( and still) what he was getting at were faces that dont fit the suit. Put another way clowns who should be in clownsuits.
Nonetheless why would any right minded politician wish to be interviewed by either of these cretins.
PS A unique opportunity coming for the P.M’s entourage to quietly feedback the anti Trump agenda being pursued across the bBC organ.
Anti-Trump agenda……..
I’m getting fed-up of turning the telly on in the morning. Two subjects. Bash Trump. Bash Brexit. I wish they would get over themselves.
Again this morning it’s the “Mexican Wall Scandal” It doesn’t occur to anyone as they pillory Trump yet again while showing images of the Mexican border wall…….hey wait! A wall. Look at it. There is ALREADY a wall there. It has been there all through the Obama presidency. And through George W Bush’s. Why is there no investigative journalism? (It wouldn’t take much) Why is no one asking themselves when the wall construction began? They’re too busy bashing Trump to bother. The Mexican border wall began during Clinton’s time in office you see. And it was supported by Billary all along. until she needed another weapon to fire at The Donald.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-i-voted-for-border-fence-to-keep-out-illegal-immigrants/article/1061753