I have never rated Nick Robinson, he seems to be too pleased with himself and is all too often careless with the facts. The more I listen to him the more I get that impression confirmed. This morning is no different as he treats us to a torrent of negative disinformation about Brexit along with Mishal Husain who uses a discussion about robotics in agriculture to scaremonger about agriculture dying in this country #duetoBrexit and all produce having to be imported at exhorbitant prices….no indication that the government says workers will come in on seasonal work visas to work on the farms as they used to do….and paradoxically the guest mentions that these jobs will be the first to go when things get automated…so why do we need these low skilled EU workers? Oh and we’re being squeezed….worst this century….inflation due to Brexit. Apocalypse now!
Robinson was talking about the ‘new’ revelation that Parliament will get a vote on the Brexit deal and if they reject it there will be a ‘no deal’ exit. Robinson must read this blog as he made a meal of emphasisng this was ‘new’…but it’s not as we pointed out yesterday. Old news that the BBC recycles as terrifying alarmist news about Brexit.
Note the tone and language used….the PM is using a ‘threat’ to pro-EU rebels whereas Tory pro-Brexit ‘rebels’ are the ‘threat’. Robinson and Kuenssberg continually use the term ‘crash out of the EU’….pretty perjorative and alarmist along with ‘cliff edge’. Robinson has a technical term to describe the situation….apparently Parliament has to ‘like it or lump it’...a somewhat dismissive and negative term to use.
We also get the twisting of the narrative….Leave based its campaign upon ‘taking back control’ and of course sovereignty….Remain and the BBC try to use this to say that denying Parliament a significant and effective say in what Brexit should look like is a contradiction of this.
The lie to this is of course that ‘Parliament’ consists of mostly Pro-EU MPs who will use any chance to amend and water down Brexit so that Britain doesn’t in fact leave the EU in any meaningful way….we will still pay huge amounts into the EU, still be subject to the ECJ, still be open to mass immigration.
This situation has already arisen as Labour and Remain Tories table hundreds of amendments to the EU bill going through Parliament right now in an attempt to thwart Brexit.
Giving Parliament complete control over Brexit will mean there is no Brexit…..thus the paradox and malignant result of doing so.
‘Parliament’ of course forgets that it is there to implement the will of the People, the People that decided we will have ‘Brexit’…..they voted to leave the EU regardless of the alarmist scaremongering by the Remain campaign given so much airtime by the BBC.
But how would you describe ‘sovereignty’?
Maybe like this….Sovereignty can be understood as the authority of a state to govern itself, and determine its own laws and policies.
Not then….Parliament able to ride roughshod over the will of the people?
Mishal was priceless in that segment, wasn’t she?! She completely overlooked the past and current food waste issue (not just due to supermarkets’ requirements but also in part due to EU-wide market conformity) and hammered away at the supposed present and future ‘labour shortage due to Brexit’.
I can’t help wondering whether intelligent, thinking Remain voters (the sort who listen – we are told – in great numbers to the TODAY Programme) are noticing this brainless campaigning against Brexit and are thinking “Hmmn, could I have got this EU thing wrong? What am I being TOLD to think here, even though it doesn’t stand careful examination?”
If The Referendum Goes Wrong .?
Robinson putting that question to Norman Tebbit .
Sovereignty can be understood as the authority of a state to govern itself, and determine its own laws and policies.
The snake Mandelson would argue that a single nation no longer has sovereignty as it is subject to international regulation. By ‘pooling’ our sovereignty with our ‘friends’ in the EU we somehow regain the power that we have lost.
The problem with that argument is that while a nation like Norway can make its own case at, say, the WTO, the UK has to first get down on its knees to the EU and then be outvoted. The result is that as it is only the ‘EU’ argument that is put before the WTO the UK’s position doesn’t even get a mention. The same thing happens with ‘internal’ law-making too, which is why the snake likes the EU. Special interest groups in the UK know that there are some things that would never get through a UK parliament but they can lobby the EU commission without any scrutiny by the EU media or parliament in the EU or here.
No democracy, no sovereignty.
“Robinson and Kuenssberg continually use the term ‘crash out of the EU’…”
“Crash out of the EU” would be accurate reporting if Davis went to Brussels tomorrow and told Barnier that we were refusing to recognise the validity of Article 50, that we were leaving the EU on Thursday and that he could F##k Off. That would be crashing out.
Instead we have accepted the leaving process set out in Article 50. We gave the EU almost a year for the other states to understand that were leaving, then we gave formal notice to start the two year cycle of negotiations. We are following the terms of the treaty, which is not “crashing out”.
The current problem is that we and the EU have different understandings of the process of negotiation. Our understanding is that each side sets out what it wants, then goes away to think about what the other side said before coming back with revised terms making some concessions. As the concessions made by both sides build up their positions come closer together and finally an agreement is reached. The EU’s understanding is that they make demands, we make concessions and then the EU repeats its original demands. This process is repeated until we capitulate. This can’t come as a surprise as Yanis Varoufakis told us exactly what they would do before the negotiations began.
There will be a growing temptation to tell the EU to F##K Off, but that has to be resisted because Hammond has refused to release any money for preparations for leaving without a trade deal. The longer we delay before preparing for reality the more pressure there will be to accept whatever ultimatum the EU dictates in 2019 – which is what the quislings want. I include the BBC in with the quislings.
I wonder if Hammond will have to say something about the cash demand the EU is making in the budget next week ( 22nd?) as it must be close too the 14 days the EU kindly gave us to come up with the bribe money .
My bet is that they’ll agree £40 billion and show how tough we have been but in real life it should only be the legal requirement and not a penny more .
Even when the sum has been agreed they’ll screw us by attaching residence and trade to each other in a way that we ll won’t have really left .
It’s a shame the PM wasn’t a brexiter .
I listened to Kuennsberg on the BBC last night, she ended her piece with ….’ if we leave or stay in the EU’ , the BBC narrative is that leaving the EU hasn’t actually been decided!
And that, Jerry, is precisely how they influence the national mood.
Insidious.
Nick, Mishal and the rest are going to need to find something pretty special to keep the spotlight focused still on firing Boris to distract from activities elsewhere that clearly would not arouse BBC editorial interest but may register with any less willing to trust the national broadcaster alone:
https://order-order.com/2017/11/14/dent-coad-drew-tory-lynched-tree/
Maybe… David, Clive or Di on the couch to comment on the sensitivity of the motif at this difficult time?
They won’t make anything of it, there are no enemies on the left.
Heard the Robinson interview of someone the conservatives put up to talk brexit . Robinson’s ego is obviously expanding and asks a question but interupts the answer . I started to wonder if he was on some sort of mind altering medication if you take me drift …
We also get the twisting of the narrative….Leave based its campaign upon ‘taking back control’ and of course sovereignty….Remain and the BBC try to use this to say that denying Parliament a significant and effective say in what Brexit should look like is a contradiction of this.
Parliament had months and months to debate the referendum bill and in the end agreed that the ballot paper should offer the simple choice: ‘In’ or ‘Out’. The majority Remainers thought they’d got it comfortably in the bag so thought anything more complex would be waste of effort, and in any case might mislead some of the electorate sufficiently into voting the ‘wrong’ way.
They also approved the wording of the accompanying information leaflet which categorically stated Parliament would ‘implement’ what the people decided, not ‘hold another vote to see if we think you got it right’.
Of course an impartial BBC would have made this screamingly obvious point to Remoaner politicians a long, long time ago.
But as they are Remoaners themselves, they haven’t.
Nick has climbed upon that highest of BBC horses again.
Comments suggest the fall from that perch will leave a bruise.
There are so many other tweets, from Nick and others, it was hard to locate the one referred to. Here it is: