Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
Peregrinus wrote: »If the UK Parliament approves the negotiated deal before 12 April I'd be cautiously optimistic that they'd get an extension to 22 May, even though that still presents risks for the EU. But I don't think Parliament is going to do that.
If they don't approve the negotiated deal before 12 April, then I doubt very much that they will get an extension to 22 May. But they will probably be offered a longer extension, at any rate if they have a half-way credible plan for progressing towards a deliverable Brexit which commands a majority in Parliament. That will be conditional on them participating in the EU Parliament elections; they are already shaping up to accept that condition, which I think tells us the way the wind is blowing.
The EU's concern is that there should be a deal which commands support in Parliament. That deal will in no way be harder than the current negotiated deal; it is likely to be somewhat softer. The EU would have a strong, strong preference for a deal comprising (a) the Withdrawal Agreement exactly as negotiated, plus (b) the Political Declaration, anended to target a softer Brexit in the future relationship than May has been targetting up to now. At most, the EU would accept the most formal and technical amendments to the WA needed to keep it consistent with any changes to the Pol Dec.
If Parliament feels the need to hold a second referendum as a condition of getting buy-in from both major parties, or to secure public approval for the new deal, or to impose a mandate on a possibly reluctant fugure government to implement the deal, or if they want to hold a general election for those purposes, the EU would be happy to accommodate this. But they won't drive it; it will remain a UK decision to hold a second referendum or a GE.
But the EU would be less inclined to accommodate a second referendum which would offer a no-deal option; although the UK has the right to leave with no deal, the EU would regard it as an unfriendly and unhelpful act, and wouldn't want to be seen to do anything to facilitate it.
That all sounds reasonable to me. An extension of the exit date is possible under the conditions that either of the three options will get the approval of parliament, the deal, a BrexitRef2 or a snap GE.
This is what the EU stance is. An extension beyond the 22nd May without the UK taking part in the EP elections is what both sides are rather try to avoid. Unless the UK revokes her Art. 50 application unilaterally and takes part in the EP elections, but for that time is already too short for that cos there are no preparations for this made in the UK.
They can't send in the old ones from the now ending EP term. Everything else is just vague speculation and would be legally complicated (holding EP elections in the UK later to have new MEPs after the new EP term has already started).0 -
Realistically, even if Parliament votes to approve the deal tomorrow, they would be vary hard pushed to enact the necessary legislation (which is substantial, complex and will be bitterly opposed and impeded by the ultra-Brexiter minority) in time to implement the deal and Brexit by 22 May.That all sounds reasonable to me. An extension of the exit date is possible under the conditions that either of the three options will get the approval of parliament, the deal, a BrexitRef2 or a snap GE.
This is what the EU stance is. An extension beyond the 22nd May without the UK taking part in the EP elections is what both sides are rather try to avoid. Unless the UK revokes her Art. 50 application unilaterally and takes part in the EP elections, but for that time is already too short for that cos there are no preparations for this made in the UK.
They can't send in the old ones from the now ending EP term. Everything else is just vague speculation and would be legally complicated (holding EP elections in the UK later to have new MEPs after the new EP term has already started).
So if you grant any extension at all now, there's a sporting chance, to put it no higher, that even if it's a short extension ending on 22 May you will pretty soon be looking at
- extending it, to give the UK more time to ratify and implement the deal, which you cannot do unless the UK is no course to participate in the EU election, or
- having the UK crash out without a deal the day before the election, which would be a political nightmare for EU countries, or
- having the UK revoke A50 notice the day before the election, which would result in the UK remaining in the EU for some time, which would create a legal nightmare if the UK did not particate in the elections.
So, fundamental requirement for any extension beyond 12 April, for any purpose, in any circumstances, with any plan, is that UK should prepare for elections as a member, and should continue to do so until it actually ceases to be a member. And you should be clear-eyed about going down this road and accept the probability that, if there is any extension at all granted beyond 12 April, then it's more likely than not that the UK will be participating in the EU elections on 23 May.0 -
I agree with most of your post but this one. The EU has already set out the extension that the UK can get from them and they have also set out the conditions to it. The EU is tired of negotiating with Theresa May I suspect and will probably feel they have reached the end of what they can negotiating with her.
That is why the conditions for extension is clear, pass her deal this week and get an extension to 22 May to pass the legislation required. If parliament doesn't pass her deal then leave on the 12th April. However if a new plan is brought forward by the UK, i.e. new general election or new referendum or even new Tory PM then a longer extension can be discussed but only if the UK participates in the EU elections.
The EU will not allow May to drag this out to beyond a date where the UK cannot participate in the EU elections but ask for potential extensions after that time, or use that as a means to pass her deal. She will be gone either way very soon and if she blackmails her successor with her deal that they fundamentally disagree with it is actually better to deal with no-deal for the EU.
That is all quite so as you say. Still, it appears that everything possible might be done to avoid a hard crash out to keep the damage a hard no-deal Brexit will cause at a limit, a limit which is rather hard to predict.
Seems that even the diehard dinosaurs of the DUP are finally getting real and move towards supporting a CU:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47808491The DUP has held out the prospect of supporting a customs union as talks continue between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to break the Brexit deadlock.
But I wouldn't bet on them as they are too stubborn in their deluded Unionism that in the next moment they just drop it and return to their old stance.
Mrs May has always got the blame for this mess of Brexit as head of the UK govt, but in fairness and for the sake of not letting the other hard Brexiteers getting away with it scot-free, the Tory Brexiteers together with the DUP have a fair share in this as well, if not the most of it. In fact it is them who are hard to win for a compromise and now that they see the clock running down more faster, even already beyond the aimed Exit date passed, some of them budge to common sense. But that is more in order to avoid losing face and getting blamed afterwards when the economical catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit hits the UK.
It won't take long until we know what is coming up next which means whether the deadline of 12th April 2019 with a more likely no-deal exit of the UK from the EU will be kept or they'll get another couple of weeks to the final day 22nd May. Either way, the international reputation of the UK is already in tatters because of that Brexit farce which is dragging on since the BrexitRef 2016 result. I'm not surprised that noone in the DUP gives a fiddlers about that, nor am I much surprised that the ERG MPs are still gambling. They are both ruthless and selfish.0 -
prawnsambo wrote: »No parliament can bind a future paliament. So it can't be done that way. And it will take a long time for the PD to become all grown up and an international treaty, so there's a hiatus there that could be exploited by a future government to change its direction. I'm not actually sure why TM just doesn't tell Corbyn what he wants to hear, secure in the knowledge that she (or any future PM) can change it at any time in the future. The only motivation I can see is that she's stubbornly wedded to her deal and any compromise will look like defeat. To Labour. Oh my days!
Because the WA deals with some pretty fundamental issues and the only way to get out of these is to agree a future deal.
The PD is the EU and the UK agreeing to the foundations of such a deal. If the next PM decides to not stick to that then the WA will simply continue. If the next PM decides to pull out of the WA, well its basically the same as no deal.
There is no advantage to the UK in doing that. They would massively burn bridges and still have no trade deal.
But in time, it has to be expected that if the promised trade deals with the US, Australia etc come to be more beneficial than staying within a relationship with the EU then the UK will move to withdraw. The EU are betting that that will never be the case.0 -
prawnsambo wrote: »No parliament can bind a future paliament. So it can't be done that way. And it will take a long time for the PD to become all grown up and an international treaty, so there's a hiatus there that could be exploited by a future government to change its direction. I'm not actually sure why TM just doesn't tell Corbyn what he wants to hear, secure in the knowledge that she (or any future PM) can change it at any time in the future. The only motivation I can see is that she's stubbornly wedded to her deal and any compromise will look like defeat. To Labour. Oh my days!
Shows what an utter load of nonsense these May/Corbyn/Sturgeon talks are. May is effectively only the acting PM as it is but she’s gone either by April 13th or May 23rd and there has to be a general election then....with a PD that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and which Labour aren’t going to agree to anyway. It’s a pure sham!0 -
Advertisement
-
The second tweet in this thread explains ALOT about the BBC's reporting especially when Laura K and Katya Adler claim inside knowledge on whats happening but it always seems to be incredibly bias towards the brexiteer viewpoint
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/11135356518808698880 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Realistically, even if Parliament votes to approve the deal tomorrow, they would be vary hard pushed to enact the necessary legislation (which is substantial, complex and will be bitterly opposed and impeded by the ultra-Brexiter minority) in time to implement the deal and Brexit by 22 May.
So if you grant any extension at all now, there's a sporting chance, to put it no higher, that even if it's a short extension ending on 22 May you will pretty soon be looking at
- extending it, to give the UK more time to ratify and implement the deal, which you cannot do unless the UK is no course to participate in the EU election, or
- having the UK crash out without a deal the day before the election, which would be a political nightmare for EU countries, or
- having the UK revoke A50 notice the day before the election, which would result in the UK remaining in the EU for some time, which would create a legal nightmare if the UK did not particate in the elections.
So, fundamental requirement for any extension beyond 12 April, for any purpose, in any circumstances, with any plan, is that UK should prepare for elections as a member, and should continue to do so until it actually ceases to be a member. And you should be clear-eyed about going down this road and accept the probability that, if there is any extension at all granted beyond 12 April, then it's more likely than not that the UK will be participating in the EU elections on 23 May.
Sure, you're quite right there. It's just that recent developments have become pretty much more unpredictable. For the time being I reckon with the UK leaving on 12th April 2019 unless May gets another Extension until 22nd May 2019 to get the deal through or whatever it is that will be likely to get a majority in the Commons.
I rather doubt that in this short time which is left til 22nd May 2019 that the UK will take part in the EU EP elections. More practical but legally difficult would be to have the old UK MEPs remain in the EP for the time being and let them have elected later but this would require to either revoke article 50 or have quick BrexitRef2 with a result of a majority voting for the UK to remain a member of the EU. A snap GE for a new UK govt wouldn't be as helpful as the aforesaid as long as both main parties, Tory and Labour are both holding on on Brexit.
I think - as I see it as well - that the split in the UK society is already that deep that people are still not inclined to vote for the alternative pro-EU parties which are the LibDems and the Greens. They could and would bring about a change given a solid majority for them to form a govt. But that looks very much unlikely to take place.
A couple of days ago I came across this article which gives one the perspective from another EU member state which was a former British Colony and therefore know the Brits as much as the Irish do.
https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/comment/blogs/93840/a_sad_end_for_perfidious_albion_michael_falzon#.XKXEdGZ7lIk
It's an interesting reading and I think that the author goes straight to the point. Never mind the comments on that article cos many of them are not much relevant.0 -
Wrong bill, the one you're thinking of was 310-310 with Bercow making it 310-31110000maniacs wrote: »Bercow had no choice. A draw is always a rejection.0 -
The second tweet in this thread explains ALOT about the BBC's reporting especially when Laura K and Katya Adler claim inside knowledge on whats happening but it always seems to be incredibly bias towards the brexiteer viewpoint
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1113535651880869888
I was (half) listening to the latest Brexitcast, the one after TM announced her negotiations with Corbyn and the request for another extension.
This, by any measure, was a significant event in politics and a major change in the Brexit story.
What did Laura have to say about it? Did she go in with the points that TM have failed miserably, that the government pleas that the EU would bend have turned out to be nonsense and that the whole thing is a mess?
No, she was more interested in the drama of it all, what Tory backbenchers would think.0 -
I was (half) listening to the latest Brexitcast, the one after TM announced her negotiations with Corbyn and the request for another extension.
This, by any measure, was a significant event in politics and a major change in the Brexit story.
What did Laura have to say about it? Did she go in with the points that TM have failed miserably, that the government pleas that the EU would bend have turned out to be nonsense and that the whole thing is a mess?
No, she was more interested in the drama of it all, what Tory backbenchers would think.
I have ceased to read her articles long ago.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Indeed. The last couple of months I have noticed while Katy Adler remains unbiased Laura tends not to be, in the long run, it seems for her unable to stop bringing in the bias of those she has close connections to.
( Although, I may well be reading Katy's same bias on a pro-eu basis and ignoring). Tim Shipman's the same as Laura .... I do wonder how Laura and Tim would do without their contacts in the Tory party and whatsapp groups
Most unbiased for me is Faisal Islam for Sky, amazingly. Tony Connelly is a joy to read though hardly unbiased !0 -
Shows what an utter load of nonsense these May/Corbyn/Sturgeon talks are. May is effectively only the acting PM as it is but she’s gone either by April 13th or May 23rd and there has to be a general election then....with a PD that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and which Labour aren’t going to agree to anyway. It’s a pure sham!
I have been waiting for her political demise for a Long time and was reckoning with it in 2017, 2018 and of course this year. Still, she 'keeps buggering on' (to use the Churchill phrase).
When I consider Boris Johnson taking over from her, this might be the final nail into the Tory's coffin. With JRM instead of Johnson it will even get worse.
As for the LP, that party would really be better off with Mr Starmer as leader. Corbyn was a failure right from the start cos he has shifted the LP as much to the far-left as the Tory Party got to the far-right by the influence of Tory Kippers.
Both parties need to return to the centre ground to solve this Brexit mess. But this seems too difficult with their present leaders in charge and a worse potential successor on the Tory side in a past-May time.0 -
I was (half) listening to the latest Brexitcast, the one after TM announced her negotiations with Corbyn and the request for another extension.
This, by any measure, was a significant event in politics and a major change in the Brexit story.
What did Laura have to say about it? Did she go in with the points that TM have failed miserably, that the government pleas that the EU would bend have turned out to be nonsense and that the whole thing is a mess?
No, she was more interested in the drama of it all, what Tory backbenchers would think.
The pinnacle Brexitcast moment for me (as I've posted before) was last Autumn when an Irish journalist was on and tried to raise the question of the border but was cut off and told by Chris Mason "We'll have plenty of time to talk about that later" and they went to a piece where they were showing a lady who had painted her nails in support of the UK leaving. It was a day when the Brexitcast was broadcast on Daily Politics on BBC 1.
They didn't discuss the border at any point later in the show.
It was funny throughout the last several months when Katya Adler constantly spoke about how the EU always caves and really this was just a dance until they acquiesced to UK demands.0 -
Just on a lighthearted note, Nadine Dorris was on Preston last night bemoaning the fact that Mp's are failing to deliver the will of the people and deliver BRexit. They are all stuck in their own positions and will not compromise.
Preston asked her if she would vote for a deal agreed between TM and JC if that included a CU, to which or course she unequivocally stated no. Que laughter and amusement from Preston and the others guests!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1109594/Brexit-news-UK-EU-ITV-Peston-European-Union-Theresa-May-Jeremy-Corbyn-Alastair-Campbell0 -
That is exactly my point. She is the Political editor of BBC News, so quite a responsible and impactful position.
The UK media is as much intangled in this Brexit mess like the many of the Brits within and outside the UK.
I have been following this Brexit Charade through the guardian in recent years. Although the political leaning of the guardian is more to my own, there are plenty of articles which are in my view Maybe good suggestions, but most just theoretical considerations which no MP is inclined to heed.
I have often come across comments from readers who blame the BBC for being biased in favour of Brexit. I for myself didn't find much evidence for this, but I admit that I wasn't digging for that that much.
I rather pick the articles that appear interesting to me, hers are not among them, for the very reason you've pointed out.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »No, it forces May to ask for an extension no matter what so that she can't let the clock run down. That's my understanding anyway.
So the HoC have basically given control now to the EU as they are the ones who will set any timetable.
So crash out now gets blamed on the EU regardless, brilliant counter ploy, a Jed Mercurio style plot twist.0 -
I have often come across comments from readers who blame the BBC for being biased in favour of Brexit. I for myself didn't find much evidence for this, but I admit that I wasn't digging for that that much.
I agree that the BBC are not biased in favour of Brexit per se, at least IMO. But they fail to tackle the almost laughable holes and lies within the Brexit argument and fail to hold the guests to account.
The recent episode of Newsnight where Maitlis questioned JRM use of the term 'slavery' was a case in point. It was noticeable because it so rarely happens.
So, IMO, they are actually trying not to be biased at all, but in doing so treating all statements as equally valid and that questioning would be seen as being biased so avoid it to a large extent.0 -
So the HoC have basically given control now to the EU as they are the ones who will set any timetable.
So crash out now gets blamed on the EU regardless, brilliant counter ploy, a Jed Mercurio style plot twist.
Only people who have been paying no attention and have no idea what is happening will think like that. And they will blame the EU regardless.
Anybody with even an ounce of a clue know just how badly the UK have handled this entire process.
This sums it up I think
https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/11134769789659750430 -
Just on a lighthearted note, Nadine Dorris was on Preston last night bemoaning the fact that Mp's are failing to deliver the will of the people and deliver BRexit. They are all stuck in their own positions and will not compromise.
Preston asked her if she would vote for a deal agreed between TM and JC if that included a CU, to which or course she unequivocally stated no. Que laughter and amusement from Preston and the others guests!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1109594/Brexit-news-UK-EU-ITV-Peston-European-Union-Theresa-May-Jeremy-Corbyn-Alastair-Campbell
This is exactly the point where I can't understand their stupid stance. To leave without being a member of the CU it imposes tariffs on all goods and makes the flow of free trade impossible in our times of time pressure to deliver goods on time.
It just proves my point once again, as so often, the many Brexiteers are just deluded and really stupid British Empire nostalgists and still think that the world is following them but the world doesn't, rather will the UK be left behind and on the path to economical decline which will all the still unsolved social and economical problems make even worse. But that's not what the Brexiteers realise, they still dream of bygone era which has passed into history a long time ago.0 -
Advertisement
-
The second tweet in this thread explains ALOT about the BBC's reporting especially when Laura K and Katya Adler claim inside knowledge on whats happening but it always seems to be incredibly bias towards the brexiteer viewpoint
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1113535651880869888The UK media is as much intangled in this Brexit mess like the many of the Brits within and outside the UK.
I have been following this Brexit Charade through the guardian in recent years. Although the political leaning of the guardian is more to my own, there are plenty of articles which are in my view Maybe good suggestions, but most just theoretical considerations which no MP is inclined to heed.
I have often come across comments from readers who blame the BBC for being biased in favour of Brexit. I for myself didn't find much evidence for this, but I admit that I wasn't digging for that that much.
I rather pick the articles that appear interesting to me, hers are not among them, for the very reason you've pointed out.
This is as much a reply to a point in both posts, the tweet from Nick Boles, if true, would make me sit up even more about the potential for bias at the BBC. Robbie Gibb was in charge of a lot of influential programs at the BBC during the referendum and it would go a long way to explaining why their interpretation of balance was so skewed as to make it unbalanced.
It would explain why the likes of the IEA got a lot of airtime and why economists views were contradicted by politicians who could just dismiss it out of hand.
Posts on Laura Kuenssberg had been accurate so far I think. She is way to invested in the politics of Westminster politicians instead of the policies. I think she would be a great journalist to pursue certain angles on what is happening with the politicians, not the Political Editor who is ignoring what is happening and is focusing instead on the people. It makes sense though, she has built up her sources and they are giving her gossip and she is not about to burn her sources by calling them out.0 -
-
at this stage the utter shambolic nature of the Uk's handling of the whole process has been laid bare to such an extent that even blaming the EU isn't going to cut it anymore.So the HoC have basically given control now to the EU as they are the ones who will set any timetable.
So crash out now gets blamed on the EU regardless, brilliant counter ploy, a Jed Mercurio style plot twist.
up until now every error on the part of the brits could be blamed on the Eu, Eu bullies, Eu intransigence,etc,etc.but things have gotten to such a sorry state now that thats has nearly been dropped completely, even by the likes of the express and the sun.
perfidious Albion has turned on itself.0 -
I agree that the BBC are not biased in favour of Brexit per se, at least IMO. But they fail to tackle the almost laughable holes and lies within the Brexit argument and fail to hold the guests to account.
The recent episode of Newsnight where Maitlis questioned JRM use of the term 'slavery' was a case in point. It was noticeable because it so rarely happens.
So, IMO, they are actually trying not to be biased at all, but in doing so treating all statements as equally valid and that questioning would be seen as being biased so avoid it to a large extent.
The problem of the BBC as a primarily state funded company is to be obliged to stay neutral. This obligation makes them be perceived by people who follow their reporting critically as being biased.
Other (private funded) Broadcasting companies are more free in style and conduct of reporting about as well as interviewing politicians. I always keep that distinction between them in mind.
But I agree with your view, even the BBC should be that mature to question politicians on their choice of terms and wordings. That is what journalism is all about and should be after all.0 -
So the HoC have basically given control now to the EU as they are the ones who will set any timetable.
So crash out now gets blamed on the EU regardless, brilliant counter ploy, a Jed Mercurio style plot twist.
There are various interpretations but according to Mathew Parris, who is usually on the money, Cooper's bill means that May must request a long extension if there is no agreement with Corbyn or the WA isn't passed by April 12th.0 -
People say that Corbyn has shifted the LP too the far left, simply repeating what they've read or been told about him.I have been waiting for her political demise for a Long time and was reckoning with it in 2017, 2018 and of course this year. Still, she 'keeps buggering on' (to use the Churchill phrase).
When I consider Boris Johnson taking over from her, this might be the final nail into the Tory's coffin. With JRM instead of Johnson it will even get worse.
As for the LP, that party would really be better off with Mr Starmer as leader. Corbyn was a failure right from the start cos he has shifted the LP as much to the far-left as the Tory Party got to the far-right by the influence of Tory Kippers.
Both parties need to return to the centre ground to solve this Brexit mess. But this seems too difficult with their present leaders in charge and a worse potential successor on the Tory side in a past-May time.
When you look at the policies and the last Labour manifesto, it doesn't read as being of the far left tbh.0 -
This is as much a reply to a point in both posts, the tweet from Nick Boles, if true, would make me sit up even more about the potential for bias at the BBC. Robbie Gibb was in charge of a lot of influential programs at the BBC during the referendum and it would go a long way to explaining why their interpretation of balance was so skewed as to make it unbalanced.
It would explain why the likes of the IEA got a lot of airtime and why economists views were contradicted by politicians who could just dismiss it out of hand.
Posts on Laura Kuenssberg had been accurate so far I think. She is way to invested in the politics of Westminster politicians instead of the policies. I think she would be a great journalist to pursue certain angles on what is happening with the politicians, not the Political Editor who is ignoring what is happening and is focusing instead on the people. It makes sense though, she has built up her sources and they are giving her gossip and she is not about to burn her sources by calling them out.
Her articles have become more tedious to me and I think the reasons for that it has become that way are pointed out in your post.0 -
Forgive me for the mini rant, and I know this is not unique to the Brexit scenario / British Politics:
I am so sick of senior MPs (on both sides) who constantly bleet on about protecting their party values which actually translates as them protecting their own job, as they know they will have to face up to the minions while doing their next election drive.
I getthat its a really difficult job to constantly try and spin and manipulate public opinion, but if they actually focused on the job in hand rather than just one up man ship over they might have actually a strategy decided by now.
Lord knows what they could have wasted the last 3 years of their time doing instead of this political snakes and ladders.0 -
Indeed. The last couple of months I have noticed while Katy Adler remains unbiased Laura tends not to be, in the long run, it seems for her unable to stop bringing in the bias of those she has close connections to.
( Although, I may well be reading Katy's same bias on a pro-eu basis and ignoring). Tim Shipman's the same as Laura .... I do wonder how Laura and Tim would do without their contacts in the Tory party and whatsapp groups
Most unbiased for me is Faisal Islam for Sky, amazingly. Tony Connelly is a joy to read though hardly unbiased !
I've enjoyed Faisal's coverage, both on screen and on twitter. It's a shame he's leaving to join the BBC.0 -
Advertisement
-
The problem of the BBC as a primarily state funded company is to be obliged to stay neutral. This obligation makes them be perceived by people who follow their reporting critically as being biased.
Other (private funded) Broadcasting companies are more free in style and conduct of reporting about as well as interviewing politicians. I always keep that distinction between them in mind.
But I agree with your view, even the BBC should be that mature to question politicians on their choice of terms and wordings. That is what journalism is all about and should be after all.
I think the problem comes in that both sides will claim bias and the BBC will use that as justification that they are neutral. But having the ERG stating the BBC is biased because they are not using economists that agree with their own view and have experts saying their policies are not realistic is not the same as complaints that they are giving airtime to the likes of the IEA when they have not reported who funds them and what their aims are.
I always think of the analogy that if someone says it is raining you don't need to interview someone else to dispute this to be neutral. You put your head outside the window and see if it is raining. If it is not you call out the person that is lying, this is not happening enough at the BBC in my view. James O'Brien called this out a long time ago when they were considering him as a journalists but asked that he temper his views on Brexit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement