Category Archives: BBC bias

The ardent pro-mass immigration, open borders lobby, and that includes the BBC, live inside a delusional bubble in which the real world, and the consequences of their actions, don’t penetrate in the slightest.

On Monday Marr and three other lobbyists teamed up against the lone Daniel Hannan as they pressed for unrestricted immigration without regard to what is happening in the world around them.  Steep rises in all sorts of crimes, anti-Semitism, European towns and cities where it is unsafe to walk the streets, attacks on migrant women and children by male migrants (Studiously ignored of course by the Left unlike attacks on migrants by racist groups)…and that’s not even venturing down the road of cultural differences due to religious affiliation.

These people just don’t seem to understand, or don’t care, that Europe is being torn apart by the incursion of millions of foreigners who have little intention of integrating least of all of reforming Islam and abiding by the cultural norms and practises of the countries they go to exploit.

Norman Tebbit spells it out…

These are dangerous days for Western civilisation

We must make a choice: close our frontiers to those unwilling to respect cultural values or admit as many migrants as are delivered

There is a choice to be made. One way is to close our frontiers to those who are unwilling to respect or share our cultural values which spring from our Judeo-Christian inheritance. The other is to admit as many migrants as the people smugglers deliver to our frontiers in the hope that they will adopt our culture and values, knowing that if they did not, we would have to adopt theirs, or risk sinking into a struggle between irreconcilably divided communities.

Even the lefty Der Spiegel admits the migrants are causing chaos and are using or liberal attitudes against us…

Has the German State Lost Control?

It is the clash of two cultures: A constitutional state that emphasizes de-escalation, integration and the empathetic re-socialization of young offenders; and immigrants from authoritarian societies who misunderstand the approach and take advantage of the fact that they, even if they break the law, are neither deported nor toughly punished.

The consequence is that, in some places, law and order is restricted, or doesn’t exist at all. Like in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. Or in troubled city quarters in Frankfurt and Berlin during the entire year.

The state has accepted its own impotence, and it was perhaps possible to accept so long as tens of thousands of asylum-seekers weren’t entering the country every year. But now Germany is facing an enormous task: that of absorbing and integrating hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of refugees. It is a challenge that can only be met if Germany once again begins to consistently enforce its rules.

Being a left wing paper it likes to try and put the blame upon the police, or rather the lack of police and the failure to resource them sufficiently….but in the square in Cologne there were over 100 police officers..more than sufficient you might think for a normal crowd….who would have expected the events that did happen?

However in doing so the paper admits that the real problem is migration itself, migration of people with little intention of conforming to societies rules and norms….and that Germany has lost control….due to its liberal, progressive attitudes towards the migrants.

Who will take control is the question…the government or will it be left to the People to police the streets themselves with all that that leads to…..all out conflict.

Still, Marr and his crowd are happy fiddling whilst Rome burns and Swedes (ironically immigrants themselves once) say Sweden is no longer safe, and 10 year old boys are raped repeatedly.

Con Coughlin in the Telegraph examines the dangers of the Liberal’s open door, look-away approach as ISIS use the migration crisis to inflitrate its terrorist cohorts into Europe….

Isil is actively using the migrant routes to dispatch scores of highly trained terrorists throughout Europe with detailed instructions on how to carry out atrocities on a similar scale to the mass attacks carried out in Paris last November, which claimed 130 innocent lives.

The skilful exploitation of migrant routes by jihadi terror cells will certainly add to the pressure on EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and his aides who, despite months of warnings that the refugee influx would seriously jeopardise European security, have failed miserably to appreciate the scale of threat.

Rather than trying to improve checks made on the backgrounds of those seeking refuge, EU officials have preferred the easier option of lecturing member states on why they need to accept ever-larger migrant quotas.

The result is that European politicians now find themselves overwhelmed by a wealth of security and social concerns .

Curiously the BBC seems less than interested in the reports of terrorist inflitration via the immigrant routes.

We import far more from the EU than we export to them…who needs who?

The Today programme ran two interviews, one each with a pro and anti EU group.  Justin Webb did both interviews, the pro-EU managed to bag the apparently prime 08:10 spot on Monday and the antis got 07:50 on Tuesday.

Perhaps the barrage of criticism the BBC received for the highly inaccurate/dishonest programmes by Jonty Bloom and the subsequent attention on their EU coverage meant that Webb was given a heads up on how to deal with these interviews in a balanced and impartial manner for the interview with Lord Rose from the ‘in’ campaign (08:10) was highly critical of the campaign’s propaganda and Webb did his job as well as anyone could expect.

In contrast the interview with Jon Moyniham from VoteLeave (07:50) was a mixed bag and rather uninspiring, a let down for either side in the debate.  Webb seemed more interested in trivial matters and off-thread themes than keeping to the attack.

Moyniham said that we don’t have a say in how any money the EU generously returns to us is spent…Webb made the odd counter that ‘We know how it is spent’….which wasn’t Moyniham’s point at all….that being, we want a say in how it is spent.

Similarly Webb went off on a tangent and alluded that Moyniham’s policy was to  cut spending on agriculture as if Moyniham himself would have that say.  Moyniham of course would not be in government, he is only part of the Brexit campaign….as he pointed out it would not be his job to make the decision, the important thing was that it was the British government that did make it and not the EU….a difference that Webb couldn’t seem to grasp.

On trade with the EU Webb preferred to say that 50% of our exports (later he corrected that to 45%) went to the EU and 10% of the EU’s exports came to us…he could of course have said that 53% of our imports came from the EU…a different emphasis and it shows how statistics can be used to change a narrative.

Webb insisted on mentioning that although we give a large contribution to the EU we get some back, what he didn’t mention was the cost of all the EU regulations imposed upon our businesses which amount to £33 bn a year apparently.

From a government briefing paper:

Various studies have attempted to quantify the benefit or cost to the UK of its membership of the EU. This is a very difficult exercise and depends on a wide range of assumptions. Estimates vary significantly. For example, a 2005 study by the Institute for Economic Affairs found a cost of between 3% and 4% of GDP while a 2013 study by the CBI found a net benefit of between 4% and 5% of GDP. A 2015 study by Open Europe found that the cost of the 100 most burdensome EU regulations was £33.3 billion a year.

Webb ended on a duff note about the campaign group itself and whether or not it would join forces with other Brexit groups which seemed more a weak attack on the Vote.

David Keighley notes the links the BBC has to pro-EU groups such as the CBI…

In effect, a Radio 4 programme broadcast on Thursday [by Jonty Bloom] was a clear declaration that the Corporation will be actively campaigning to amplify such messages – especially those about the single market.

Perhaps there is no surprise in this – after all an ex-BBC strategy chief, Carolyn Fairbairn, is now director-general of the fanatically Europhile Confederation of British Industry and  has been declaring her referendum plans to the Guardian; and Sir Roger Carr, a former president of the CBI, is now deputy chairman of the BBC Trustees. The Corporation is so steeped in the importance of Brussels that it cannot see or think outside that bubble.

At what point, however, does biased BBC reporting tip over into being deliberately untrue?

The most important point from these interviews is the claim that we would be shut out of European markets….just how likely is that?

The EU bloc is massive…,..

How large is the EU Economy?

Since its formation in 1993, the European Union¹ (EU) has become larger than any individual economy in the world, with its GDP surpassing the USA’s in 2003, for the first time since 1998, as shown in Figure 1. Despite this, the EU’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% in 1993 to 24% in 2013. This is because growth in non-EU economies has outpaced growth of EU economies, mainly driven by strong growth in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies.

But would it lock the UK, the 5th largest economy in the world and an important trade partner with the EU, out of its markets?  Hardly seems likely when it is committed to open markets and free trade……import tariffs very low or zero…..

The EU benefits from being one of the most open economies in the world and remains committed to free trade.

• The average applied tariff for goods imported into the EU is very low. More than 70% of imports enter the EU at zero or reduced tariffs.

• The EU’s services markets are highly open and we have arguably the most open investment regime in the world.

• The EU has not reacted to the crisis by closing markets. However some the EU’s trading partners have not been so restrained as the EU has highlighted in the Trade and Investment Barriers Report and the report on protectionism.

• In fact the EU has retained its capacity to conclude and implement trade agreements. The recent Free Trade Agreements with South Korea and with Singapore are examples of this and the EU has an ambitious agenda of trade agreements in the pipeline.

And to re-emphasise that….. the EU is only 10% of world demand….there is a whole wide world of opportunity out there…..and the EU is very keen to make deals with non-EU trade partners……

Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.

As tariffs are relatively low in world trade today, trade barriers lie behind the customs borders: hence the EU aims to conclude Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTA) that, on top of removing tariffs, also open up markets on services, investment, public procurement and include regulatory issues.

If the EU was to complete all its current free trade talks tomorrow, it could add 2.2% to the EU’s GDP or €275 billion. This is equivalent to adding a country as big as Austria or Denmark to the EU economy. In terms of employment, these agreements could generate 2.2 million new jobs or an additional 1% of the EU total workforce.

Highly unlikely that the UK will be locked out of that.

Fascinated to know what we import from Antarctica (£2,771) and North Korea (£1,654,042)

Whilst some MPs exploit fabricated stories of asylum seekers being marked for persecution in order to promote their hard left agenda others are more interested in finding the truth.

Remember the furore about the asylum seekers marked out for persecution by having red doors to their homes?….seems all is not so clear cut…or rather it is…..if a rabble of MPs can find this out why not the enormously resourced BBC?

From The Spectator:

The whole purpose of parliamentary select committees was supposed to be to help inform policy-making. Instead, they have sunk to becoming rather vulgar kangaroo courts used by wannabe barristers of the backbenchers to boost their egos. It took about five minutes at today’s session of the Commons Home Affairs Committee to establish that neither G4S nor Jomast (the landlord which provides properties in Middlesbrough for the housing of asylum-seekers) have a policy of deliberately painting front doors red in order to help identify the occupants as asylum-seekers. Only 59 per cent of properties in the town occupied by asylum-seekers are red, it turns out. Moreover, the doors have been painted red for 20 years – long before they were used to house asylum-seekers.

Still, that doesn’t stop the sorry sagas of the red doors and the red armbands entering Left-wing hall of infamy as they weave their tales of the terrible lives asylum seekers live in this country…..Marr was quick to mention the armband nonsense as an example of our attitude towards migrants as he trailed his programme on immigration yesterday.

The Home Affairs Committee hasn’t published the findings yet.

Red doors and red armband ‘outrage’?   Just examples of migrant ‘lawfare’ and the agitprop of the ‘charity’ migration industry and Left-wing anarchists.

Got to laugh, or cry, as the politicians make fools of themselves and the media bandy this story about as if it was true.

Food wristbands scrapped for Cardiff asylum seekers

A firm providing meals for asylum seekers in Cardiff has dropped demands they wear wristbands as a condition for receiving food.

The coloured bands were given to asylum seekers staying at Lynx House.

But some said it was dehumanising and made people targets for abuse.

The Clearsprings Group, which runs the service, said wristbands were seen as a “reliable and effective way” to guarantee service delivery but, as of Monday, they would no longer be used.

First Minister Carwyn Jones said he was “appalled” by the wristbands.

Heard the BBC giving this important story a good deal of prominence all day…question is, is any of it remotely true?  Do these immigrants really get the slightest bit of abuse because they wear a red arm band that is undoubtedly, firstly, hidden beneath their sleeve, secondly, are probably completely meaningless to anyone on the street…especially as so many people wear armbands for all sorts of causes these days.  The BBC reported that people passing in cars would shout ‘Go back home’ to wristband wearers….might suggest the colour of their faces might actually be the cause of that racism not a probably invisible armband….but hey, before we mock, the armbands were a ‘mental torture’ for one chap….he’d suffered sneeking into the country under a train but couldn’t face another day wearing this rubber band…..any thought that he’ll soon be contacting a solicitor and demanding a pay out in compensation for this oppressive requirement that is so redolent of slavery and the plantations?

What an arse….

I’ll bet he has to wear an ID badge everyday to go to work….same as those at the BBC do……

ID Card Policy

Poor old Eddie Mair is so oppressed and brainwashed that he even complains that he hasn’t got a pass anymore….

My BBC security pass has stopped working. I knew this day would come but a letter would have been nice.

Well, the BBC is making headlines itself today.

“People over 75 may be asked to give up their free TV licence or make a voluntary contribution to it, under plans being considered by the BBC.  The corporation must absorb the loss of £650m worth of licences for over-75s from 2020 as part of a funding deal agreed with ministers last year. A report on ways to appeal for voluntary contributions is due in 2016. The BBC has refused to comment on suggestions that older celebrities might front a publicity campaign.  The Times reported that such a campaign could be run by personalities such as Sir Michael Parkinson and actress Dame Helen Mirren.”

I was on BBC5Live this morning discussing this with Nicky Campbell. My contention remains the same. The BBC funding model is bankrupt, morally and financially. It’s not just over 75 year olds that should be offered a choice as to whether they should pay the BBC poll tax, we ALL should. Using millionaire oldies to try and flog us the idea is an indication as to how detached from reality the BBC has become.

Time for a new one of these for your completion. This is where you detail the bias1

The Guardian never fails us…or its chums at the BBC.

The reason the BBC allowed Savile to rape and abuse young boys and girls was that the BBC were under siege from Thatcher and her ilk…..why is it always Thatcher’s fault?

Savile debacle is the clear consequence of a BBC under siege

Dame Janet has ploughed through 375 witnesses over three years. She has documented four Savile rapes and some 61 sexual assaults in corporation corridors, kitchens, dressing rooms and studios scattered far and wide. And yet she concludes that “nobody in a senior position at the BBC was ever aware of information that could have led to, or assisted in, the prosecution of Savile. Prosecution and imprisonment was the only way to stop him.”

How can this possibly be?

“A deference” down the line that stifled allegations about Savile in a trice. He was “talent” (like other offenders from the same putrid pod). He seemingly couldn’t be stopped, sacked or prosecuted. He was special. Therefore he had to be defended, like the broadcasting giant he served, because – then, in the 1970s, as now – it was under attack.

Those attacks come now, as they came then, from politicians seeking to bully the state broadcaster. They impose unwanted governance by Downing Street démarche. They threaten the BBC’s future – and find ready supporters in Fleet Street. Deference up and down the chain; defensiveness as a dominant posture; a culture of loyalty and mute embarrassment; a determination to survive by rocking as few boats as possible. In today’s terms, the BBC of the 70s and 80s was already a powerful brand: a brand under siege that had to be protected.

Ironically the Guardian’s reaction provides the real answer….the closed world of like-minded chums who don’t want to admit blame and take the responsibility and have other mates in the media to cover up for them.

The Guardian goes on…

Institutions under attack build walls around themselves. They repel controversy. They create sheltered places where bad things can happen. And their external fear translates into an internal dread of nasty news. It’s the job of journalists to open up these worlds – a job failed in Savile’s case over decades, and tragically let slide by a defensive Newsnight.

And if those journalists fail to do their job who is then left to rein in the BBC?  The politicians.  The reason politicians complain about the BBC so much is because there is so much to complain about.  If the BBC journalists were doing their jobs there would be little to complain of but instead they use their privileged positions at the BBC to peddle their own political views and ideologies.  Any wonder they come under scrutiny, especially when they produce reports that whitewash the BBC’s role in Savile’s crimes.

And in reference to the BBC and its whitewash Alex Feltham in the comments links us to this…..

How’s About That Then?

Even those familiar with the BBC’s twisted morality were stunned.

The leaked £10m investigation into Jimmy Savile’s four decade career of paedophilia, sexual assault and rape at the BBC finds that absolutely nobody was responsible. Apparently no manager up to and including the Director-General himself could have done anything to stop this monster pervert stalking the corridors of the BBC. In the words of Dame Janet Smith who wrote the report, “I do not think that the BBC can be criticized for failing to uncover Savile’s sexual deviancy.”

Just imagine what the BBC’s own journalists would make of such a story if the abuser was Willliam Hague and the organization was the Conservative Party? At the very least they would be pushing for the abolition of the Conservative Party and probably of the very concept of conservatism itself. Somehow I don’t think they’ll be taking such an uncompromising line with themselves when the report is officially released.

But you shouldn’t run away with the idea that nobody at the BBC has been held accountable. In the wake of the scandal the BBC has forced out at least 4 employees. It turns out that there are limits to what even the BBC will tolerate. And that limit isn’t the practice of paedophilia on the premises but disloyalty to the cause. The BBC constructively dismissed those who actually had done the right thing and (very belatedly) exposed Savile. Meirion Jones and Liz Mackean who worked on a Newsnight piece which was blocked by their editor Peter Rippon, and Tom Giles and Peter Horrocks who made a Panorama episode on the same subject were left in no doubt that they had no future at the Beeb.

This is an even greater scandal in its way than the original Savile outrage. After all, the only defence of senior BBC bosses over their inaction on Savile was that they were unaware of his crimes. But if that were true, how can they justify destroying the careers of those people who fought to bring those crimes to light?

A little light reading for those who want to judge the BBC’s EU coverage and need a bit more information to go by….

The Norway Option — Some bookmarks

The Norway Option will keep appearing in the EU referendum debate so here are some useful links explaining what it’s all about.

What is the Norway Option?

The Norway Option is a move whereby the UK gives up EU membership by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and moves to a position in the European Economic Area which essentially only participates in the single market and therefore the four freedoms of movement, goods, capital and people but is not engaged in political union. EEA countries are Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, but as Norway is the biggest country in the group, any proposed shift by the UK to this position gets labelled as The Norway Option.

In order to join the EEA, the UK would probably first join EFTA (of which Switzerland is also a member) although that particular move depends on Brexit negotiations.

A quick comparison of the Norway Option and Britain’s current EU membership:

 

Like all those political exemptions….and most people would probably agree.  Norway seems to have a pretty good deal but the BBC likes to concentrate mainly on the economic consequences of Brexit…or I should say the supposed consequences…There will be winners and losers in either scenario but in the end not much will change economically…but the BBC, as in Bloom’s misleading report, cherry-picks alarmist scenarios that paint a highly negative picture of leaving the EU.

To most people this is not about economics [The billions we plough into the EU might come in handy though]  and more to do with the politics, sovereignty, the ECJ, immigration and control of your own country to a much higher extent than being subsumed inside the EU would, or does, allow.

The BBC of course would find it hard to quantify such feelings  [Though 4 million votes for UKIP might have helped them] and in reality doesn’t try too hard to do so preferring instead to settle for labelling the sceptics racist little Englanders.

Balance, who needs it when you are completely unaccountable.

Norway and the EU

Norway and the EU enjoy good and close relations, although Norway is not a member of the European Union. The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) is the mainstay of our cooperation, and it ensures that Norway takes part in the EU internal market. We are also part of the Schengen Agreement and cooperate with the EU on foreign and security policy issues.

Through the EEA Agreement, the three EFTA states Norway, Iceland and Liechten-stein are equal partners in the EU internal market, on the same terms as the EU member states. Moreover, the Agreement also covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture. It also enables the three EEA EFTA states to participate in various EU programmes.  Norway also participates in the activities of a number of EU agencies through provisions in the EEA Agreement or on the basis of bilateral agreements.

The BBC likes to come up with the alarmist scenario that on leaving the EU we will still be subject to their regulations on products if we want to export to them…..therefore we might as well stay in the EU….or on that logic we might as well be the 51st State……[never mind many rules and regulations are imposed due to world-wide trade or political agreements on subjects such as energy efficiency, climate and safety and will be imposed whether or not you are in the EU]

Want to export to the USA?  Here’s some regulations you have to obey to do so……

8.3 Regulations

You should make sure you know which US regulations apply to your products or services and follow packaging and labelling requirements.

Some of the main US federal agencies are:

• Food and Drug Administration – food, drugs, medicines and cosmetics
• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau – alcohol and tobacco
• Consumer Product Safety Commission – consumer products
• Federal Trade Commission – business practices
• US Fish and Wildlife Service – animal products
• Environmental Protection Agency – human health and environment

The USA.gov website has a full list of US federal agencies.

Check the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to find out what standards apply. The NIST works with industry to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards.

Those damnable Yankees imposing rules and regulations upon businessmen who want to export to the good ole US of A…..listen to the BBC burbling on about the marvels of the EU and the dangers of being out of, or is that in, the EU and you’d never know that the US and all other countries impose stringent conditons upon those who want to export to their countries….if you listen to the BBC the only way to succeed in business is to join the EU for regulation free business….it is regulation free isn’t it?

The BBC’s message is very confused….the EU is great but it imposes regulations that are a nightmare.

Apparently if you are in the EU life for a businessman is a bed of roses…no regulations, no tariffs, no rules or nuffink…..great….oh hang on….if you’re a slinking curr on the outskirts of the great and fabulous EU, like Norway for instance, and you rather tentatively dip your toe into the EU’s waters then you will still be subject to a tsunami of regulations and rules that the EU imposes upon its own businesses….er…..er….what?  So at one moment the BBC tells us life will be fantastic for all businessmen if they are in the EU…..but if  you’re not fully committed you will still be subject to those fabulous regulations that EU businessmen so enjoy and which makes the EU such a good place to be a member of, however you will suffer under them.  That makes a lot of sense…to the BBC, in particular to one BBC journalist…Jonty Bloom, who tells us that if you’re not fully in the EU you’re living a nightmare…..

The business woke up to a nightmare….half of Osos products useless or unsellable.

I first caught Jonty’s jaunty little babble about the EU on FOOC and thought that it was such a one-sided, pro-Europe piece of propaganda I’d have to look further.  Apparently the FOOC piece was a mere taster for the full-on indigestible tripe that Bloom would try to force feed us later on.

It was indeed just a foretaster for a much longer programme, but one no more rounded or informative, on the subject of Norway and its relationship with the EU….unfortunately it seemed that Bloom’s aim was political, to persuade us that doing a ‘Norway’ and remaining out of the EU was a bad idea rather than a rounded and intelligent, and accurate, honest, look at not just the Norwegian option but all other options as to how the UK could shape the way it deals with the EU……such as Switzerland..

Switzerland is neither an EU nor EEA member but is part of the single market

Or, shock horror, perhaps just leave altogether.

Bloom has other ideas in this programme….

Norway’s European Vision

Norway isn’t a member of the European Union, but does business with the EU. Is it a model for other countries? Jonty Bloom speaks to people working in a range of businesses – including Norway’s vital fishing industry – and asks about the advantages and disadvantages of the arrangement.

Bloom also had a write up on the website…….

How does Norway’s relationship with the EU work?

There is not going to be a referendum on joining the European Union in Norway anytime soon, not least because the polls show that up to 85% would vote against joining.

Despite telling us that 85% would vote against joining the EU Bloom brings us the views of two supposedly pro-EU businessmen…..the first a fisherman….which is dishonest in itself as Norway is a member of the EEA, the rules of which do not govern fishing and agriculture and so don’t relate to, or rather negates, this narrative from Bloom that being part of the European Economic Area means you are subject to all of Europe’s rules.

Bloom then goes to a boiler manufacturer whose travails are solely, we are told, due to being suddenly subject to the EU rules on energy efficiency…again, funny how EU rules are a burden and yet the EU is a good thing when it suits.

OSO Hotwater is a maker of central heating boilers just outside Oslo, and a few years ago it woke up to a nightmare. Overnight it discovered that the EU was introducing new environmental and energy efficiency standards that favoured gas powered boilers over electric ones.

As OSO’s boss Sigurd Braathen told me he did the calculations and realised that half of Oso’s products would soon be useless: unsaleable.

Now, as Norway is not a member of the EU, it has no say over these or any other EU rules. It can lobby against them, but it does not sit round the table when they are proposed, discussed, amended, debated, or voted into law.

In theory it has a veto over any legislation but it has never used it, and the consequences of using the veto could be huge.

Curiously, or not, that wasn’t what Bloom wrote originally….this is what he told us on first draft..

It [Norway] most certainly does not have a veto over any legislation and yet the consequences can be huge.

Bloom was clearly ridiculed for that mistake, ignorant piece of reporting, complete lie, take your pick, by various commentators and he rewrote his piece…however it is still highly misleading.

Bloom then goes on to explain why being in the EEA means you are still subject to all EU rules and, his main point, that you have no say in how those rules are drawn up……

New machinery and robots that were needed to install better insulation onto the boilers — in all it has cost the company £5m of extra investment.

Now you may be wondering why, with a large domestic market, OSO did not just turn its back on the European Union and its new rules and ignore them. The answer is that it can’t.

This is a key factor of the Norwegian model; Norway is not in the EU, but it is in the European Economic Area (EEA), and technically it is as much a part of the single market as France, Germany or the UK.

As Sigurd told me: “The legislation came from the EU and it was implemented in Norway without any alterations to the way we would have liked it to be.

“It is implemented in Norway in exactly the same way as the rest of the EU and we can get no exceptions and no adaptations to Norwegian conditions. We have difficulties making alterations to any of the legislation we are getting.”

OSO and many other companies in Norway have to follow the rules of the single market even if they have never exported so much as a single widget to the European Union.

That is just one of the costs of Norway’s non-membership of the EU.

It does a higher percentage of its trade with the EU than we in the UK do, in fact more than the vast majority of EU members do.

But it pays hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the right to do that and has to accept all the rules and regulations without a say in how they are made.

 

So Norway has no influence on EU regulations and rules that effect it?

Influencing the EU – EEA Decision Shaping

Decision shaping is the phase of preparatory work undertaken by the European Commission to draw up new legislative proposals. The EEA Agreement contains provisions for input from the EEA EFTA side at various stages before new legislation is adopted.

Bloom wrote..[Norway] ‘can lobby against them, but it does not sit round the table when they are proposed, discussed, amended, debated, or voted into law.’

Not true at all…..Norway has little but not absolutely no say in the decision as to whether the regulations would actually be made law but it has a huge say in how they are drawn up…..

During the decision-making process on the EU side, the EEA EFTA States have little or no formal opportunity to influence the Council or the EP. This is very different from the pre-pipeline or preparatory stage, where the EEA EFTA States take an active part in the decision shaping of EEA legislation.

Once an EC act has gone through the EC procedures and been adopted, the desk officer in the EFTA Secretariat responsible for that area prepares a standard sheet concerning that particular act. The standard sheet is a form which records all references and vital information about the act in question. EFTA experts in the capitals must answer a number of questions, such as whether the act is EEA-relevant, whether it will require technical adaptations for implementation in the EEA EFTA States, and whether it is likely to have constitutional requirements

The contracting parties have not transferred any legislative powers to the EEA Joint Committee. It has therefore been necessary to regulate the situation in which, according to their constitutions, an EEA JCD can only be binding on one or the other contracting party after it has been approved by parliament or by referendum……an EEA JCD can only be binding on one or the other contracting party after it has been approved by parliament or by referendum.

Decisions that have budgetary implications for more than one year will in principle need parliamentary consent in Norway.

So any new laws have to be approved by the Norwegian parliament or by a referendum….so much for no veto and no say.

And what else tells us that Norway has a huge say in any new regulations?…..

The EEA institutions          
Substantive decisions relating to the EEA Agreement are a joint venture between the EEA EFTA states and the EU. Common bodies, such as the EEA Council and the EEA Joint Committee, have been established to administer the EEA Agreement.

Can the EEA Agreement be amended?

The EEA Agreement is dynamic in character. This means that it is continuously updated and amended to incorporate new internal market legislation in order to maintain common rules across the EEA.

 

Any other consultations?…..

Commission committees

In addition to the meetings with experts mentioned above, EEA EFTA State representatives have access to the following types of Commission committees in the policy-shaping phase: comitology committees (Article 100 EEA), programme committees (Article 81 EEA) and other committees in very specific areas (Article 101 EEA).

And on energy policy?….

The EU Energy Policy and the EEA

Underlines the importance of Norway as a major supplier of energy to the EU, resulting in more than half of the EU supplies being produced within the European Economic Area; highlights the importance of a regular energy dialogue between the EU and Norway

 

The Danish Energy Agency and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) both provide input to the EU legislative processes for more eco-friendly design and the energy labelling of products. Since 2007, Viegand Maagøe has led and participated in an expert consortium that provides technical assistance in EU negotiations on future legal requirements for products.  We have worked to promote Danish and Norwegian interests in the EU and have contributed to promoting ambitious energy requirements for products.

And just how important is the EU market on the scale of things?…….

Agreements

Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.

EU trade negotiations

The EU has successfully concluded a number of important trade agreements with trading partners and is in the process of negotiating agreements with many more.

Does Norway participate actively in policy debates with the EU?……yes of course….

Norway–EU cooperation at political level

Norway and the EU share the same fundamental values, and face many of the same challenges. Close cooperation at political level is essential to find joint solutions to these challenges.

How about the Norwegian ‘Mission to the EU’?  Does that have a reason for its existence?…..

Mission of Norway to the European Union

The Mission of Norway to the European Union plays an essential role in the development and implementation of Norway’s policy on Europe. The Mission is also an important centre of expertise on EU and EEA affairs for the Norwegian public administration.

Just how much influence might Norway have?…….quite a lot you’d think…..

Trade picture

• Norway is the EU’s 5th most important import partner for trade in goods, after China, Russia, USA and Switzerland and the 7th export market for the EU, after the USA, China, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey and Japan.
• Norway’s trade with the EU shows a surplus. Norway’s trade flows have traditionally been dominated by trade with the EU, and this trend is being enhanced after the latest EU enlargements.
• The EU remains the first major import and export partner for Norway, capturing 74.3% of the latter’s trade.

Interesting that non-aligned Switzerland is ahead of Norway.  Just how many cuckoo clocks does Europe need?

 Any sign of Norwegian diplomacy in action in the EU?……

Never before have so many Norwegian Government ministers visited Greece than during these last months.

For a country that’s not a member of the EU it seems they are allowed a great deal of say in how things are run….not the narrative Bloom and the BBC has been selling us at all.

It took no time at all to Google [tax free] Norway’s influence over policy and regulation making decisions….why did a BBC journalist with all those resources and time behind him not come up with the answers?

The only possibility is because he didn’t want to give us the truth and was solely intent on selling us a ‘nightmare scenario’, ironically, of still being subject to the EU but having no influence over it…a narrative that is demonstrably false.

So much for the BBC having trained its journalists to report in the EU and the referendum accurately and impartially….as others have noted…

The Truth, The BBC and the EEA

EU Referendum: BBC – the enemy without

Another pack of BBC lies

Can’t be any clearer about the BBC’s dishonesty can we?…oh hang on…Bloom’s in the clear….the BBC hasn’t decided what ‘impartial…accurate….honest…balanced‘ mean yet..they’re having a consultation about that…the result due in February….when the referendum could be held in June….

The BBC Trust is today [ 20.11.2015 ] launching an eight week consultation asking for views on a set of referendum guidelines and a set of election guidelines which will assist BBC journalists and content producers reporting on both the European Union membership referendum and on elections due to take place next May.

We anticipate that the final guidelines for the referendum and for the May 2016 elections will be published in February 2016.

Carry on regardless then Jonty.

The Telegraph tells us……

BBC charter review consultation hijacked by left-wing campaign group

The Culture Secretary has been forced to revisit the consultation on the future of the BBC

John Whittingdale, the culture secretary, is to launch a new study of public attitudes towards the BBC, after a consultation into the future of the corporation was hijacked by a left-wing campaigning group.

It has now emerged that 177,000 submissions – 92 per cent of all responses – were sent via 38 Degrees, a “campaigning community” that specialises in organising mass-emails to MPs. The group told its three million members that ministers planned to “rip out the heart of the BBC”, by forcing the corporation to take adverts and ending its independence from government –neither of which are proposed in the green paper.

Not only did 38 Degrees organise the massed response but damningly ‘guided’ the answers that people wrote to the review….which you might think completely undermined any appearance of credibility and honesty…..

The group told its members that it had “translated” the “gobbledegook” questions in the consultation into plain English, and gave them a crib sheet advising people how to respond. One question in the green paper asked, “How well is the BBC serving its audiences?”, which 38 Degrees told its members to answer as “Which parts of the BBC do you particularly love?”.

A question asking whether the corporation had a negative impact on any of its commercial rivals was described as: “If you value having independent news that comes without adverts, you could write about that here.”