Category Archives: BBC bias

 

 

 

 

“be[ing] a Nazi province” was preferable to becoming a British dominion. Philippe Pétain, a leader of the pro-armistice group, called union “fusion with a corpse”.

Craig at Is the BBC Biased? reports on a David Keighley News-Watch piece  on Nick Robinson’s claim that Churchill was the father of the European Union  which give us a lot more detail about what went on in 1940….David Keighley concludes….

[Robinson] doctored some of the original commentary to make it fit with EU’s hagiography about its formation….It is deeply troubling that he should project such bias, at any time – but especially during the EU referendum. It seems that he deliberately chose to amplify the ‘Churchill is father of European unity’ concept.

I thought, well why not just Google it and see just how easy it is to find out about the plan.  Something Nick Robinson could have done with ease……and I came up with a Wikipedia article that gives an indepth look at how the Anglo-French union came about…and you know what, it wasn’t as Robinson said here…

There’s one interview we haven’t got, it’s with the man who in many ways was the father of a united Europe. No, he wasn’t a Frenchman, he wasn’t a German, he wasn’t a Belgian, he was, in fact, the British Bulldog himself, Winston Churchill. In the desperate days of June 1940, Britain’s new wartime leader’s first instinct was to go for full political union, quite unthinkable today. Churchill’s plan, in a last-ditch effort to stop France falling to the Nazis, was that Britain and France would become a single country, an indissoluble union with one war cabinet running defence and the economy on both sides of the Channel. The British Cabinet backed it, but with one prophetic exception, they simply couldn’t stomach the idea of a single currency. Days later France fell, and with it, at that stage, the idea of political union. 

Trouble is, it wasn’t Churchill’s plan, he had little to do with drawing it up…it was Frenchman Jean Monnet’s plan and as for indissoluble…it was only for the duration of the war as the British declaration made clear.

The EU itself is pretty clear who is to blame…

Jean Monnet is seen as the founding father of the Community which has been developing and growing since 1950 from principles and plans he defined and began to put into practice. 

We have inherited Jean Monnet’s idea and it is up to us to press ahead with the historic task of building Europe.

A single Cabinet, a single army, a single nation’

In the spring of 1940, after the defeat of General Weygand’s troops, what counted most for Monnet was to ensure that the allied democracies did not break ranks in the face of the enemy. He arrived in London a few days before General de Gaulle and drafted a plan for an indissoluble Franco-British Union, a true merger of the two nations, for de Gaulle, the British Government and the French authorities in refuge in Bordeaux. The idea was to create a psychological shock and encourage the French army to get out of enemy reach and the French navy to join up with British forces and carry on the fight.

 Robinson doesn’t for some reason tell us that in 1956 the french proposed yet another union…this time by Mollet not Monnet…. ‘French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed a union between the United Kingdom and the French Union with Elizabeth II as head of state and a common citizenship. As an alternative, Mollet proposed that France join the Commonwealth.’  British Prime Minister Anthony Eden rejected both proposals. 

Ironically it was the BBC that rediscovered this proposal... The Mollet proposal was first made public in the United Kingdom on 15 January 2007 through an article by Mike Thomson published on the BBC News website…..and the French reaction in 2007?….French journalist Christine Clerc asked former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (Gaullist) about Mollet’s 1956 proposal. Pasqua answered, “if his demand had been made official, Mollet would have been brought to trial for high treason“

Guess Robinson picked and chose bits of history to suit a particular narrative…that of Churchill being very pro-European Union….Robinson tells us the French rejected the proposal but not just how hostile the French cabinet’s reaction was to the proposal in 1940 ...that “be[ing] a Nazi province” was preferable to becoming a British dominion. Philippe Pétain, a leader of the pro-armistice group, called union “fusion with a corpse”.

So it seems, other than for a couple of renegade Frenchman, a European Union avec Les Rosbifs wasn’t on the books except as a wartime expedient to try and keep the French on board.  Guess no one was really keen on the EU then, least of all Churchill.  Something Nick Robinson could easily have found out if he didn’t know already, and hard to believe he didn’t.  Therefore we must conclude he was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the BBC audience and con them into following in what Robinson tells us are Churchill’s footsteps and vote for further integration into the EU…as a remain vote would inevitably be.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for the Anglo-French agreement from 1940:

World War II (1940)

In December 1939 Jean Monnet of the French Economic Mission in London became the head of the Anglo-French Coordinating Committee, which coordinated joint planning of the two countries’ wartime economies. The Frenchman hoped for a postwar United States of Europe and saw an Anglo-French political union as a step toward his goal. He discussed the idea with Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill’s assistant Desmond Morton, and other British officials.^[1]

In June 1940, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud’s government faced imminent defeat in the Battle of France. In March they and the British had agreed that neither country would seek a separate peace with Nazi Germany. The French cabinet on 15 June voted to ask Germany for the terms of an armistice. Reynaud, who wished to continue the war from North Africa, was forced to submit the proposal to Churchill’s War Cabinet. He claimed that he would have to resign if the British were to reject the proposal.^[1]

The British opposed a French surrender, and in particular the possible loss of the French Navy to the Germans, and so sought to keep Reynaud in office. On 14 June British diplomat Robert Vansittart and Morton wrote with Monnet and his deputy René Pleven a draft “Franco-British Union” proposal. They hoped that such a union would help Reynaud persuade his cabinet to continue the war from North Africa, but Churchill was skeptical when on 15 June the British War Cabinet discussed the proposal and a similar one from Secretary of State for India Leo Amery. On the morning of 16 June, the War Cabinet agreed to the French armistice request on the condition that the French fleet sail to British harbors. This disappointed Reynaud, who had hoped to use a British rejection to persuade his cabinet to continue to fight.^[1]

Reynaud supporter Charles de Gaulle had arrived in London earlier that day, however, and Monnet told him about the proposed union.^[1] De Gaulle convinced Churchill that “some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war”.^[2] The Frenchman then called Reynaud and told him that the British prime minister proposed a union between their countries, an idea which Reynaud immediately supported. De Gaulle, Monnet, Vansittart, and Pleven quickly agreed to a document proclaiming a joint citizenship, foreign trade, currency, war cabinet, and military command. Churchill withdrew the armistice approval, and at 3 p.m. the War Cabinet met again to consider the union document. Despite the radical nature of the proposal, Churchill and the ministers recognized the need for a dramatic act to encourage the French and reinforce Reynaud’s support within his cabinet before it met again at 5pm.^[1]

The final “Declaration of union” approved by the British War Cabinet stated that^[1]

France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.

Churchill and De Gaulle called Reynaud to tell him about the document, and they arranged for a joint meeting of the two governments in Concarneau the next day. The declaration immediately succeeded in its goal of encouraging Reynaud, who saw the union as the only alternative to surrender and who could now cite the British rejection of the armistice.^[1]

Other French leaders were less enthusiastic, however. At the 5 p.m. cabinet meeting, many called it a British “last minute plan” to steal its colonies, and said that “be[ing] a Nazi province” was preferable to becoming a British dominion. Philippe Pétain, a leader of the pro-armistice group, called union “fusion with a corpse”. While President Albert Lebrun and some others were supportive, the cabinet’s opposition stunned Reynaud. He resigned that evening without taking a formal vote on the union or an armistice, and later called the failure of the union the “greatest disappointment of my political career”.^[1]

Reynaud had erred, however, by conflating opposition to the union—which a majority of the cabinet almost certainly opposed—with support for an armistice, which it almost certainly did not. If the proposal had been made a few days earlier, instead of the 16th when the French only had hours to decide between armistice and North Africa, Reynaud’s cabinet might have considered it more carefully.^[1]

Pétain formed a new government that evening, which immediately decided to ask Germany for armistice terms. The British canceled their plans to travel to Concarneau.

The Hacked Off gang are up in arms…they don’t like it up ’em as the Telegraph and the Mail expose them.

Byline and its Peter Jukes [very well embedded at the BBC also] are upset…..

Byline ‏@Byline_Media 33m33 minutes ago

.@buchanan17 @SJHemus The Telegraph is completely incorrect about investors and there’s no funding from Hacked off.

 

 

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes

Trouble is Gilligan reveals that Byline is funded by multi-millionaire and billionaire patrons who Byline itself has boasted of…..whilst also boasting of their independence from billionaire businessmen and the corrupt media practices of the likes of the Murdoch empire….

Byline tells us they are financed by money which...’ finally came in from investors: Nicolas Berggruen, Jaewoong Lee, Eric X. Li, and Ian Osborne.’

Ian Osborne, as I’ve shown before being closely linked to Cameron and Murdoch!  Berggruen  is a billionaire.

So Gilligan is right about the funding.

Hacked Off’s Evan Harris claims no funding or link to Byline……

• Dr Evan Harris ‏@DrEvanHarris 2h2 hours ago

  .@LouiseMensch Not at all. Usual Gilligan nonsense. Most facts wrong. Eg we never promoted to Newsnight. Never worked w/ byline @peterjukes

Trouble is they funded Byline’s Peter Jukes in the past…..

• Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes Apr 6

  Absolutely. Answered many times before. HO contributed about 5% of my court reporting. Less than News UK journos @mjrharris@stevenjbarnett

You can see his funding plea here….

As for Hacked Off not working with Byline…maybe not openly but below the radar certainly…they are closely tied to Jukes and a blogger called Tim Fenton who writes in his own blog, also in the Huffington Post [which is in league with Byline’s major backer Berggruen, running a ‘magazine’ for the rich and powerful!] and of course in Byline itself.

This is what Harris said about Fenton…

‘Evan Harris, associate director of the campaign group Hacked Off, says people like Fenton are “a fine resource”.’

Guess Hacked Off finds his work useful.  In public Hacked Off, Byline, Jukes and Fenton are at arms length but in private it is a close embrace….and let’s not forget the BBC which works in parallel with HO to pressurise the government on Press regulations.  Just why is the BBC allowed to use public funds to campaign politically against its commercial and ideological rivals?

It’s a small world….a world held hostage by the rich and powerful who control the media…including the ‘rebel’ media like Byline…funded by billionaires and a close colleague of Cameron and Murdoch…LOL and all that…..one of Byline’s founders, Seung-yoon Lee, also works for World Post…. ‘He is also a contributing editor to The WorldPost, a joint partnership of The Huffington Post and Berggruen Institute on Governance.’

Arianna Huffington announces launch of World Post news website

The 1% are about to get their own publication. The digital media titan Arianna Huffington and the billionaire investor Nicolas Berggruen on Wednesday announced the launch of World Post, a comment and news website that looks set to become a platform for some of the most powerful people on the planet.

Oh yes and of course let’s not forget an earlier post about the Global Editor’s Network and the BBC’s NewsLab….look who else attends…..

Impact Journalism

On April 8-9 2016, the Global Editors Network (GEN), The Huffington Post and Change.org gathered the best media innovators in New York for a two-day Editors Lab focused on developing innovative news prototypes.

Don’t you find it odd that the BBC should ignore the very striking words of one of its once, very senior, executives, Danny Cohen, who says ‘Jews voting for Corbyn’s Labour would be like a Muslim backing Trump’

Cohen told The Times: ‘If you are Jewish how can you vote for them? How could you? For me it would like being a Muslim and voting for Donald Trump, how could you do it? You have to feel absolutely confident that it is totally unacceptable and it won’t be tolerated and I personally haven’t felt comfortable that it is happening yet in the Labour party.’ 

Not often the BBC misses a chance to quote something derogatory about Trump.  Corbyn on the other hand?  Not so bothered with.

The BBC hasn’t been at all bothered about claims of anti-Semitism within the Labour ranks…for sure it has ‘investigated’ them but in a half-hearted, desultory manner that paid lip service to investigative journalism and the need to expose such undertones in any Party…it was a tick-box exercise designed to make it appear the BBC was genuinely doing something, it was a show trial in reverse, set up not as a political demonstration of power that quells and crushes dissent, the defendant having already been deemed guilty of course, but , the BBC’s default position being that Corbyn is innocent, the case against  him is a politically motivated one trumped up by his political rivals within the party and without, it is a show trial designed not to frighten but to reassure the Public that the subject, Corbyn, is a nice guy you can trust….a show trial or a snow job by the BBC here?

Here you have a classic example of that pouring oil over troubled waters by the BBC’s Ross Hawkins.  His report was on the Today programme and on the Website…Labour’s problem with anti-Semitism.

Sounds promising doesn’t it?  Sounds like the BBC will be exposing ‘Labour’s anti-Semitism problem’….but no, that’s not the intent it would seem.

Corbyn, is it his fault?  No, not really.  You see this is being whipped up by a vociferous bunch of anti-Corbyn critics and in reality the problem was one of Ed Miliband’s making, and aaanywaay… ‘No Labour leader could be expected to vet the thousands of new members who have signed up.’   Bet that wouldn’t be the conclusion if it had been a Tory leader.

Then we get onto the real meat and bones, the real reason Corbyn faces such attacks….his political rivals are using it as a weapon to attack him…a conclusion pointedly raised by the Today Programme’s Mishal Husain….suggesting perhaps that it was all a bit of political theatre, an innocent man caught up in a political dogfight.

For some fighting Mr Corbyn’s corner, this issue is serious and real, but is also being used as a stick to beat him by his internal political enemies.

There are those who have long seen allegations of anti-Semitism as attempts to silence legitimate criticism of Israel – on which different wings of the Labour movement take passionately opposing views.

The political debate, then, is not at heart merely a row about rules or party management, but fundamental differences within Labour.

So nowt really to do with Corbyn…he couldn’t possibly know everything that was going on inside Labour, he may sympathise with terrorist groups that want to wipe Israel off the map but that’s legitimate criticism of the Zionist cause no?, and really this is a storm whipped up by a rather bitter bunch of Blairites who want to discredit Corbyn and remove him as leader.  The defence rests.  All charges dropped m’lud.

Trouble is that’s just not true.  Corbyn and his cabal have strong links to people who express violent antipathy towards Jews, not just ‘Zionists’, and Corbyn’s elevation to party leader has brought into the party people who would normally be shown the door pretty rapidly without having to prod Labour into action.

Labour has always had this problem but Corbyn’s regime has allowed it to flourish and he has done little to stop that…therefore claims he couldn’t possibly know everything don’t merit consideration as an excuse…it is his job to ensure the rules block such people entering the Labour Party…he hasn’t bothered to do so, his half-hearted reassurances lack substance and credibility when he shares platforms and his Party with such people.

Still, why bother when he has the BBC to smooth things over for him.  Nick Robinson must be proud.

Why is the BBC not ‘fact checking’ the claims about Whittingdale from the likes of Byline and Hacked Off, and let’s not forget Private Eye of course?  Why are they not checking on the motivations of Byline and Hacked Off and if there are any connections between them? Or indeed asking what the BBC itself knew in 2014.

Judging by some fact checking by others it would seem there is more than a whiff of smoke and mirrors about this whole story…a left wing driven witch-hunt that is little more than a dishonest attempt to mislead people about what really went on in order to attempt to pressurise and influence the government’s decision on Press regualtion.

Here are two articles which look closely at the motives and funding of the people behind the story…needless to say the subjects of these stories and their supporters and fellow travellers aren’t happy…and there will be more in the Sunday Times apparently.

From the Mail:

How orgy-loving Max Mosley is using his millions to seek vengeance on the Press: Behind this week’s plot to smear the Culture Secretary lies a tale of Left-wing zealots, a tinpot ‘watchdog’ (given £3m of YOUR cash) and a tycoon trying to muzzle those who exposed his sordid lifestyle

And from Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph:

The truth about John Whittingdale, the prostitute and the ‘cover-up’

Have I not got news for you….Did Ian Hislop cover up for the BBC to keep the HIGNFY pay-cheques rolling in…along with all the other work he does for the BBC or what?

Hislop appears as normal on HIGNFY and the first story is the obvious…Whittingdale…which story Ian claims his magazine broke.  Which, it didn’t.  Byline broke the story ‘officially’ [No doubt encouraged to do so by their contributing advisor Peter Jukes….who also gets a great deal of work sent his way by the BBC and who, according to the Telegraph, has been paid by Hacked Off] followed up by Hislop’s Private Eye and the BBC.  Even in the Eye Hislop still claims the credit...

NO sooner had the new issue of Private Eye gone on sale this week, carrying a detailed article questioning the motives of national newspapers in spiking a story about culture secretary John Whittingdale (full text below), than Whittingdale himself took the initiative, issuing a statement that was widely seized on by the BBC’s Newsnight, Fleet Street, opposition MPs and press privacy campaigners.

No mention of Byline then…and on HIGNFY no mention of the real source of the story Natalie Rowe…Hislop muttered coyly something about rumours on the internet.  Why no mention of Rowe and her determined efforts to get the story published?  Why not? Can it be because she first revealed it back in 2014 and there would have to be some explaining from the likes of Hislop as to why he and others, such as the BBC, didn’t break the story themselves so long ago?  He can’t very well stick it to the Redtops (and the Independent) for covering up for Whittingdale in the hope to influence his decision on Press regulation if Hislop himself, the BBC and the Guardian also knew.  Why did they not publish also?  If Hislop can conjecture about a Press conspiracy then he can conjecture about a BBC/Guardian one as well in light of their interests in Press regulation and the charter review.

Hislop the brave, investigative spearer of the Establishment?  Not when it comes to his own paymaster it seems.

What is an amusing aside is that Byline tells us they are financed by money which...’ finally came in from investors: Nicolas Berggruen, Jaewoong Lee, Eric X. Li, and Ian Osborne.’

The billionaire Berggruen and Osborne are linked…Osborne being an advisor to Beggruen.

What is amusing is that the lefty Byline, which tells us that:

News media is broken….Quality is in decline, and essential investigative work is disappearing. Democracy demands an active and independent press, not endless clickbait about Kim Kardashian’s bum, ‘Ten Reasons Why…’ articles, and ‘sponsored content’ masquerading as proper journalism.

The time has come for something different.

We’re taking out the middlemen – the newspaper proprietors and advertisers who have agendas of their own – and giving power back to the reader and the journalist. We hope you will be part of it too.

…is in part funded by that Ian Osborne who is a good pal of Cameron and Murdoch…..

His name is Ian Osborne, a British political fixer who… wouldn’t you know it?… is another of the people credited with rebranding David Cameron, along with his colleagues Rachel Whetstone and Steve Hilton.

Obsorne remains close to both the Cameron government and to Rupert Murdoch’s British lieutenants — but, again like Whetstone, Obsorne no longer spends much time in UK politics, preferring instead to act as a kind of reputation fixer for hire for US tech companies and international billionaires.

Osborne is also a contributing editor at the Spectator.

Small world…and an odd one….guess money trumps politics.  Still funny to see a lefty publication that hates Murdoch and trumpets its virtuousness being funded by an associate of Murdoch and Cameron.  There’s a conspiracy there somewhere.  Damned if I can work it out though.

The Pope’s compassion is plain to see…all the more so as the BBC has made it headline news on its frontpage….

You are not alone, Pope tells migrants

Amusingly though the BBC effectively summed it all up, and  the BBC’s own lack of answers, with this final thought on the Pope’s narrative….

The Pope is coming with a strong moral message – but no solutions.

That’s the trouble….open borders and compassion are not solutions but problems in the making.  Moral grandstanding is fine but of course it is not they who have to make the decisions, and not them who have to live with the consequences.

What would you rather see if you were a refugee…the Pope whispering worthy nothings in your ear or Spike Milligan dropping his pants and whistling Ave Maria?

The BBC slipped in an attack on Trump on the Today show in the news reporting a comment from Jordan’s Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein who is also laughably the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights….no mention of Cruz on the radio…..

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned the policies of US Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, equating them to bigotry.

Zeid Raad al-Hussein did not mention Mr Trump by name, but he singled out the businessman’s support of torture and his policies towards Muslims.

“Bigotry is not proof of strong leadership,” Mr Hussein said.

The commissioner also criticised a plan by rival candidate Ted Cruz to conduct surveillance on Muslim neighbourhoods.

“Hate speech, incitement and marginalisation of the ‘other’ are not a tittering form of entertainment, or a respectable vehicle for political profit,” Mr Hussein told an audience in Cleveland, Ohio.

The BBC added for effect..

Mr Cameron called Mr Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from travelling to the US “divisive, stupid and wrong”.

Both Pena Neito and the Pope have taken issue with Mr Trump’s call for a border wall between the US and Mexico.

No quotes from people supporting Trump’s statements.

Why no mention from the BBC that al Hussein is a prince from Jordan?  Could it be because Jordan has itself a rather sordid record on human rights…an ongoing record.

It jails anyone who criticises the King and his government, it refuses entry to Palestinians, so you have to ask why Trump’s block on Muslims until the US resolves how to check identities better is so bad?, and the use of torture is not unknown in Jordan…….why does the BBC not refer to such things in its report?  From Human Rights Watch…..

Torture, Police Violence, and Administrative Detention

Perpetrators of torture or other ill-treatment continued to enjoy near-total impunity due to the authorities’ reliance on special police prosecutors and judges to investigate allegations against, prosecute, and try fellow officers. At the Police Court, where many such cases are heard, two out of three sitting judges are serving police officers appointed by the police. To date, no police or intelligence officer has ever been convicted of torture under article 208 of the penal code.

Oh hang on why might al Hussein criticise Republican candidates?  Is it a grateful thankyou to Obama and the Democrats for their generosity and silence?

In February, the United States announced the renewal of a five-year aid package to Jordan through 2019, which provides a minimum of US$360 million in economic assistance, and $300 million in foreign military financing annually. The US granted an additional $340 million in 2014 for “costs related to instability in the region, including for security requirements along the border with Iraq.” The US did not publicly criticize human rights violations in Jordan in 2014 except in annual reports.

The gloves seem to have come off now the EU campaign is rolling officially.  For sure the BBC reports the Leave campaign’s side of the story but it is all too often with a sneer, a mocking tone and a snide comment slipped in for effect.

Nick Robinson laid into the Brexit side the other day and rounded off with a comment that back in 1975 the voters had turned away from the no campaign because of the sort of people associated with it…suggesting that today the same may be a likely result….just very slightly an insulting and personal attack on the poeple of the Brexit squad made ridiculously laughable when you have the likes of Corbyn, Kinnock, Ashdown, Mandelson, Blair and not forgetting the slippery Cameron on the stay side.  I think most would prefer Farage to that bunch….never mind the respected Gove and the ever popular Boris whom the BBC does its best to constantly undermine.

Speaking of which this morning the Today programme, or is it the Today Show, tried to ridicule Boris….first thing I heard when I switched in was a list of insults sent his way read out with glee and then we had the Obama reference, or is that reverence.  Boris criticised Obama for interfering and stating quite truthfully that the US would not give up one iota of its sovereignty and yet it wants us to hand over the keys to the kingdom to unelected Brussels bureaucrats to pilfer our treasury and ride roughshod over our laws and customs.  The BBC then disdainfully reeled off a list of apparently authoritative organisations that want us to remain in the EU mocking Boris saying he had no answer to that…nothing like the Establishment clubbing together.  What about reeling off the list of actual people who want to leave…you know the little people that will actually vote…or is the BBC saying they are worthless and ignorant and below contempt?  It seems the actual referendum is an after thought and it is up to these organisations to decide for us.

As for Obama he is one of the principle causes of a major crisis in Europe…the flood of Muslim immigrants that is overhelming us now, and that in the future promises very difficult times, is in major part the result of Obama’s policy of splendid isolation, standing back and watching the Middle East burn.  Had he intervened and stopped the war forcing negotiations on Assad years ago this situation would not have arisen……he admits himself now that he abandoned Libya….and as thousands of refugees are landing in Italy almost daily he still stands back and does nothing to stabilise that country.  Can’t help thinking he rather enjoys white Europe being overrun by people from Africa and the Middle East…but then again so does the BBC.

We have also had the BBC’s attack on the Leave sides suggestion that money sent to the EU would be better off directed at the NHS.  Humphrys yesterday had a terrible interview with Gisela Stuart either deliberately misunderstanding or just not understanding which seems to happen all too often these days with his interviews.

Humphrys immediately said she was alarmist and scaremongering that the NHS was in danger if we remained in the EU…Humphrys insisted there is no danger for the NHS just now….which is hardly the usual BBC narrative of an NHS in an ever growing crisis…as Humphrys spoke the BBC was damning the government for the lates A&E figures.

Humphrys kept on insisting that it was the government which decided how to spend its budget not the EU…entirely missing the point that  this was not about the UK budget now but a budget in the future that included money now sent to the EU which is eent back to us with orders to spend it as directed by the EU….and not forgetting to ensure there is some propaganda added to say this was ‘EU money’.  If we had control of the money we could decide how to spend it and direct it towards the NHS.  Humphrys just didn’t get it, nor did Nolan last night pushing exactly the same false line that Humphrys did.  Apparently this is a theme continued across the BBC as Craig at Is the BBC biased? tells us that Mark Mardell kept up the assault on the Leave campaign’s claim about the NHS.

On the pro-side for the BBC on yesterday’s Today programme Nick Robinson did put the awkward questions to Alistair Darling about the stay campaign being alarmist and the future is just as unknown if we stay in the EU as they claim it is if we leave.  I might suggest it is known though….the EU is falling apart and will drag us down with it…..its remedy will be to be ever more undemocratic and force a complete political and economic union through regardless of the Public’s wishes…which won’t be given the chance to be voiced.  Will the likes of Cameron or, heaven forbid, prime minister Corbyn, keep us out of an ever closer union?  No of course not.  Those in the seats of power have scant regard for the masses and will continue to steamroller through the grand EU project regardless.

Once they get a ‘yes’ vote nothing is off the table and the UK will disappear from the map as a separate and sovereign country sold down the river by a very small group of people, including Corbyn, who hold the common man in contempt and want to impose their worldview on us all.

Remember this?…

Teachers reject ‘Army propaganda’

Paul McGarr, a teacher from east London, said only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school.

‘Shoot and possibly torture’

These would have to say: “Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people’s countries,” Mr McGarr said.

“Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries.

“Join the Army and we will send you probably poorly equipped into situations where people will try to shoot or kill you because you are occupying other people’s countries.

“Join the Army, and if you survive and come home, possibly injured or mentally damaged, you and your family will be shabbily treated.”

The real trouble is that the kids reject the teachers…and it is so often the Forces that rescues them from a  life of poverty, crime and disillusion.

Unable to read by age 11… now he’s top of his class at Sandhurst: Cadet who grew up on north London estate awarded prestigious ‘sword of honour’ after beating Oxbridge candidates

How the Left must hate that story of a Black kid, failed by the education system, rocketing to the top in the racist and imperialist army that only wants to use them as cannon fodder.

Colonel Richard Kemp speaks up…

The Army gives a sense of purpose to so many young lives

The history of the British Armed Forces is replete with men and women from the humblest of backgrounds who have defied the odds to achieve the most remarkable success.

Kidane Cousland, from a council estate in Tottenham, who left school at the age of 15 barely able to read, and also originally joined as a Private, is a shining example. Yesterday he won the Sword of Honour, awarded to the top officer cadet at Sandhurst. By any measure this is a remarkable achievement. To win the sword, Cousland not only beat the 200 members of his intake on the world’s most demanding leadership course, but also the many hundreds of other applicants who failed even to reach the formidable front gates of the Royal Military Academy.

For many recruits, some as young as 16, the Army is their first proper family, and their instructors the first people to take any real interest in whether they sink or swim. Contrary to the screaming, shouting image favoured by TV documentary makers , staff at basic training centres care deeply about their recruits. They make enormous efforts – often in their own time  – to encourage them to succeed. This is a matter of personal and professional pride and also because they know that the lives of their young charges may soon depend on the standards they have trained them to.

Virtually every close relative of a soldier in my regiment, the Royal Anglians, had done time in prison. He would have followed the same path had not his attention been caught one day by the display in an Army recruiting office window. Instead he gained the top non-commissioned rank in the Army and devoted himself to fighting for his country and inspiring others to succeed.

The leadership and dedication of men like this paves the way for young soldiers such as Kidane Cousland to realise their extraordinary potential and to contribute so much to the defence of our country.

I was having a look at this earlier in the week but couldn’t see a smoking gun….it seems I may have been wrong or maybe not…you decide this one.  Churchill’s not here to guide us as to what he would think today but great men do change their minds…Jeremy Corbyn of course springs immediately to mind.

The BBC has always been prone to rewriting history to suit itself, normally to insists that the is no such thing as a ‘British’ identity and that Muslims in fact long ruled Britain having lived here for several thousand years, the Great Fire of London showed how we can be alarmist about religion, and Guy Fawkes shows how religion once divided us but it’s all OK now as Catholics have joined the melting pot….hint hint.

The BBC loves to recruit historic figures to add weight to their narratives and it seems Nick Robinson has decided to recruit Churchill to the cause of the European Union…not that the EU itself is shy about doing that very thing themselves…Winston Churchill: calling for a United States of Europe.

Robinson tells us….

I’ve been trying to discover why one question has divided the public, torn apart political parties, felled prime ministers and baffled, bemused and angered our neighbours for decades – does Europe mean “them” or “us”?

The ambiguity in our attitudes began with and was embodied in the father of the idea of a United Europe.

He was not a Frenchman, a Belgian or a German but the man who would go on to become the globally recognised and revered symbol of British exceptionalism – Winston Churchill.

Long before World War Two – but with memories still fresh of World War One – Churchill argued for a United States of Europe.

As our wartime leader, he proposed something unthinkable now – the creation of an “indissoluble union” between Britain and France with “joint organs of defence, foreign, financial, and economic policies”.

The British government signed up, rejecting only one part of the plan: a single currency. However, the French turned it and us down, not for the last time.

After the War, Churchill once again argued Europe needed to unite, though to this day historians still argue about whether he saw Britain as a player or spectator, partner or sponsor in the grand project he advocated.

Plenty to chew on there…..what of that ‘indissoluble union’?  Robinson makes it sound as if it was intended to be a permanent union continuing unendingly into the future….but was that the case here?  Was Churchill the ‘father of a united Europe’ or was that someone else?

Where did Robinson get that ‘indissoluble union’ phrase from?  From the announcement in 1940……you can see why Robisnon didn’t quote it in full nor link to it…it kind of gives the game away….this was a wartime expedient measure to last until victory over the Nazis was achieved…

BRITISH OFFER OF ANGLO-FRENCH UNION, JUNE 16, 1940

[Great Britain, Parliament, Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, Volume 365. House of Commons Official Report Eleventh Volume of Session 1939-40, (London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1940), columns 701-702.]

At this most fateful moment in the history of the modern world the Governments of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union and unyielding resolution in their common defence of justice and freedom, against subjection to a system which reduces mankind to a life of robots and slaves.

The two Governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial, and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France.

Both countries will share responsibility for the repair the devastation of war, wherever it occurs in their territories, and the resources of both shall be equally, and as one, applied to that purpose.

During the war there shall be a single war Cabinet, and all the forces of Britain and France, whether on land, sea, or in the air, will be placed under its direction. It will govern from wherever it best can. The two Parliaments will be formally associated.

The nations of the British Empire are already forming new armies. France will keep her available forces in the field, on the sea, and in the air.

The Union appeals to the United States to fortify the economic resources of the Allies and to bring her powerful material aid to the common cause.

The Union will concentrate its whole energy against the power of the enemy no matter where the battle may be. And thus we shall conquer.

 

Craig at Is the BBC biased? [?]  has come up with this excellent find in relation to what Robinson claimed and what was the real inspiration for the idea, the real ‘father of a united Europe’ idea….

So, it was “Churchill’s plan”, according to Nick, for “an indissoluble union” with France. Please bear that in mind and then compare what Nick said with what was said on the 1996 BBC programme (on which this 2016 programme drew so heavily):  

Michael Elliott (presenter): There was a time, not so long ago, when Britain welcomed the idea of European union. In June 1940 London was bracing itself for the fall of France to the Nazis. General Charles de Gaulle came to London to put an astonishing rescue plan to Winston Churchill: Britain and France should unite as a single nation. 

Robert Makins (Foreign Office, 1940): When he arrived he was taken straight into the cabinet room and, of course, we were all agog to know what it was all about, and we were afterwards informed that he had come over with a proposal that there should be a union between France and Britain. with common citizenship. 

Michael Elliott: The scheme had been dreamed up by Jean Monnet, a civil servant who would later become the Father of the European Community. 

Jean Monnet (reading from his draft declaration): The government of the United Kingdom and the French Republic make this declaration of indissoluble union. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain. Every British subject will become a citizen of France. 

Michael Elliott: Monnet’s draft was agreed in a hurry by Churchill and the war cabinet, with one prophetic proviso. They couldn’t stomach his proposal for a single currency. In any case, it all came to naught. The French cabinet turned down Monnet’s plan a few hours later.

According to the 1996 programme then, it wasn’t Churchill’s plan at all. It was Jean Monnet and Charles de Gaulle’s plan, and Winston only accepted it “in a hurry”. 

The French government itself didn’t want a European Union…so taking that as our example Nick, taking the past as our guide…logic would dictate the French have a referendum and vote leave.

Robinson admits the problem..

Little is certain. Except perhaps this – if more people understood how we got to where we are now they might find it easier to decide where we should go next.

The other problem is how he, for instance, interprets the past in order to help us ‘understand’ and inform our decision….as he tells us…

Of course, my series, Europe – Them or Us, cannot present a single agreed historical truth. Looking back, just like looking forward, involves judgements too.

‘Judgements’?  Perhaps it would be wiser for Robinson not to make judgements but to just provide us with as much factual information as possible about the EU and the two campaigns’ narratives than to flick through the history books trying to use that as a prop for an agenda one way or the other.

However we’re here now so let’s ask did Churchill want to be in a United Europe?…Maybe, maybe not, it’s very unclear, he certainky wanted a union of European countries….but did he include Britain in ‘Europe’?……his first priority was definitely the Commonwealth though he did also suggest that our interests lay in Europe….but he also suggested they lay with the US.  Times change and situations change with them…..what was good in 1949 perhaps cannot be used as a useful guide to today when the situation is vastly different.

Churchill did say this in November 1949….

Britain is an integral part of Europe, and we mean to play our part in the revival of her prosperity and greatness. But Britain cannot be thought of as a single State in isolation. She is the founder and centre of a world-wide Empire and Commonwealth. We shall never do anything to weaken the ties of blood, of sentiment and tradition and common interest which unite us with the other members of the British family of nations. But nobody is asking us to make such desertion. But Britain to enter a European Union from which the Empire and Commonwealth would be excluded would not only be impossible but would, in the eyes of Europe, enormously reduce the value of our participation. The Strasbourg recommendations urged the creation of an economic system which will embrace not only the European States, but all those other States and territories elsewhere which are associated with them.  The British Government have rightly stated that they cannot commit this country to entering any European Union without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth. We all agree with that statement. But no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.

However in 1948 he was not advocating Britain as part of the Union…

United Europe provides the only solution to this two-sided problem and is also a solution which can be implemented without delay.

It is necessary for the executive governments of the sixteen countries, associated for the purposes of the Marshall Plan, to make precise arrangements. These can apply present only to what is called Western Europe. In this we wish them well and will give them all loyal support.

Churchill made it quite plain in his Zurich speech in 1946 that Britain was not included in the ‘European Family’ that he proposed…..he had in mind several groups…the USA, Britain and its Commonwealth, Russia, and the European Family…..

We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations.

The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany.

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia – for then indeed all would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Churchill could also be said to want a union with America and all English speaking countries..

‘Neither the sure prevention of war nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English speaking peoples’, Churchill declared. ‘This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States … I will venture to be precise … . Eventually there may come – I feel eventually there will come – the principle of common citizenship, but that we may leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us already clearly see.

If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe, and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure.’

However he did aim for a world government…but based upon the several groupings of countries such as the Commonwealth…

We must do our best to create and combine the great regional unities which it is in our power to influence, and we must endeavour by patient and faithful service, to prepare for the day when there will be an effective world government resting upon the main groupings of mankind.

All clear?  Good.

The BBC hasn’t of course always been an admirer of Churchill….more of a hate figure just slightly down from Margaret Thatcher in the left wing pantheon of hate.

Here’s the knackered old warhorse Paxman doing a bit of character assassination…

Churchill would fail today, says Paxman: Broadcaster believes wartime Prime Minister was ‘ruthless egotist, a chancer and a charlatan’ who would be unelectable

Paxman tries to tell us that no-one liked Churchill’s famous speeches and paid no attention to them…they inspired and stirred no one apparently.  But you know what…read the sources direct from the horses’ mouths and you get an entirely different story to Paxman’s cheap revisionism as he attempts to flog a book on the back of his tabloidesc sensationalism.  Read the Mass Observation records taken during the War and you’ll see that Churchill’s speeches were liked and that his appearances in public were uplifting for the public during the Blitz.

What is more you’ll find out that the BBC wasn’t at all popular…the complaints pretty much as we have now…too friendly with the enemy…and it was the same with the Forces who frequently complained about BBC reporting.

An irony today, and a lesson for us perhaps...One good reason for a united Europe…..A Grand design….

We need not waste our time in disputes about who originated this idea of United Europe. There are many valid modern patents. There are many famous names associated with the revival and presentation of this idea, but we may all, I think, yield our pretensions to Henry Navarre, King of France, who, with his great Minister Sully, between the years 1600 and 1607, laboured to set up a permanent committee representing the fifteen-now we are sixteen-leading Christian States of Europe. This body was to act as an arbitrator on all questions concerning religious conflict, national frontiers, internal disturbance, and common action against any danger from the East, which in those days meant the Turks. This he called “The Grand Design.” After this long passage of time we are the servants of the Grand Design.

Niall Fergusson in the Sunday Times in February echoed Churchill when he reminded us of this…

In the days before empire, Henry VIII’s version of Brexit was to renounce Roman Cathjolicism and divorce Catherine of Aragon.  A true sceptic in those days would have advised him to Bremain…and unite against the Turk.

Of course Merkel has other ideas and has handed Europe’s fate over to the Turkey’s Islamist leader,  Erdogan….I’m sure things will turn out well.  I wonder what the history books will say.

This may sound familiar today…..history repeating itself?…..replace ‘Communists’ with ‘Islamists’, Moscow perhaops with Saudi Arabia, and you might wonder why we don’t do more to tackle the current problem…..

The Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilisation. These are sombre facts for anyone to have to recite on the morrow of a victory gained by so much splendid comradeship in arms and in the cause of freedom and democracy; but we should be most unwise not to face them squarely while time remains.

‘From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent’, Churchill declared. ‘Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow … The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control.

Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy … this is not the liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.’

Churchill warns of complacency and approaching dangers…

This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modem times.

If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy.

And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced?

Over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror.

Indeed, but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.

They may still return.