Easy As 123: Politicising The BBC

The BBC's Brexit logo speaks volumes

Having provoked a minor breeze on Twitter about the BBC's support for Andrew Neil's shameful attacks on Carole Cadwalladr recently, I thought an explanatory post was in order.

The reason that the BBC finds itself 'politicised' in this way is not because the BBC is 'biased' - at least not in the sense of simply taking one side in any given debate.  It's down to how the BBC frames its coverage of major events in the first place.

The BBC seems to take its editorial course from what the UK government (in this case) has decided to do. It then seeks to maintain 'balance' by covering all sides in the debate about how the UK should do what the government has decided, leaving behind the question whether the UK should be doing the thing at all. 

Viewing the whole Brexit scenario through the BBC's lens, therefore, means that the numerous investigations into collusion between Leave campaigns, where their funding came from and how they abused people's personal data become irrelevant to the BBC's Brexit coverage. So, too, are marches to secure a 'People's Vote'. Because those things relate to whether the UK should leave the EU, not how the UK should go about leaving - even when stopping the process remains an option.

This is not to say the BBC completely ignores the Electoral Commission fines, Information Commissioner fines and the launch of investigations by the National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Financial Conduct Authority into the affairs of Mr Banks and various other members of the Leave Campaign and Brexit community - not to mention all the lies, distortion and gaslighting that was involved. But the BBC treats these as historic issues related to the EU referendum, electoral reform, how personal data might be abused in elections more generally and, perhaps, the role of truth in politics. From the BBC's standpoint, they shouldn't form part of its Brexit coverage because they don't relate to how the UK leaves the EU. 

This is appalling for at least four reasons. 

Primarily, it becomes really easy for the UK government to "get the BBC on side" and use its vast resources as the government's own public address system when attempting something that is likely to prove hugely complex and controversial. The government simply has to decide to do it: invade Iraq, trigger Article 50 without a plan for how to leave the EU, ignore the Good Friday Agreement... 

Secondly, the BBC's editorial choice minimises dissent by removing the oxygen of publicity from those who are sceptical or critical of the government's decision; and diverting it to those who are broadly supportive of the outcome, even if they wish to quibble over how the government achieves that goal. This allows the likes of Andrew Neil to treat the diligent efforts of Carole Cadwalladr and other investigative journalists as irrelevant, at best.

Thirdly, by moving the focus away from how the government made its decision in the first place, the BBC's emphasis risks burying evidence of corruption and so on. The end has justified the means. This encourages the likes of Andrew Neil to declare that continuing to investigate evidence of corruption and other criminality in relation to those means is somehow 'mad'.

Finally, the BBC's approach means that its reputation (and licence-fee payers' investment in that reputation) is horribly exposed to the downside of major events - or the reversal of the government's decision. The bigger the downside, or the more significant the reversal, the greater the damage to the BBC's reputation. 

What should the BBC do?

Avoid setting its editorial policy to simply accord with what the UK government (in this example) wants to do - even if that is, or is presented as, "the will of the people". 

The BBC's role should simply be to educate "the people" about the options, their implications and consequences of decisions taken. This is not about being able to say "I told you so" - it's about the BBC re-establishing and maintaining its role as an apolitical, trusted source of news and information, so that the people aren't so easily hoodwinked.

The #Brexidiots Know The Game Is Up But Are Committed To More Lies And Deception

David Davis wrote an extraordinary letter to Theresa May in December 2017. 

He whinged that the EU has been explaining to UK businesses the risks associated with the UK leaving the EU with "No Deal". The EU says that, to minimise the impact of Brexit, contracts will need to be renegotiated and EEA-facing operations will need to move into the remaining 27 EU countries ('Brexodus').  

Davis claims these explanations are a problem because the EU has not made any "reference to the possible alternative arrangements that might be agreed".  But he admits that the chance of any successful legal challenge to require the EU to mention such potential arrangements is "low" and "high risk politically and financially". 

In other words, Davis has no confidence that alternative arrangements will be agreed to prevent the need for the Brexodus of the portion of any business that relies on trade with the EEA or EU trade deals with other countries - jobs included. 

This means the very real choice facing the UK is either "No Deal" (with the consequences explained by the EU) or to withdraw its Article 50 notice and remain in the EU.

Instead, Davis promises two things: he will "continue to press our case" with the EU - which he admits has a low chance of success - and engage in "greater communication with UK businesses to provide assurances where we can." 

But given the EU's strong legal position it is clear that reliable assurances cannot be given. Any such assurances would be yet further lies and deception from the Leave camp.

This means that remaining in the EU is the only viable option for the UK, and the Brexidiots know it but are unwilling to admit it. Yet.

Think Of The #Brexidiots On the Darkest Day Of The Year

How fitting, on the shortest, darkest day of 2017, that we should think of all those Brexidiots who stood in front of that big red bus 18 months ago selling Brexit fantasy snake oil to would-be-Leavers. 

The 'promise' was that Brexit was not only practicable, but simple, low cost, would leave the UK with more money and that trade deals would be plentiful and easy. 

Yet all those snake oil salespeople - the lurkmen, touts and bludgers - have done ever since is submit to every demand the EU has made. Painting themselves and the UK into a corner where it must comply with all EU laws and trade rules but have no say in how they are made.  The member state becomes the vassal state, an EU colony, in the words of Brexidiot Johnson.

Because the UK is definitely the biggest loser out of Brexit.

And that's why 2018 will be the year it is stopped.

Time To End This False Brexit Farce?

As the EU/UK joint report on "progress" makes clear, the parties have done nothing more than agree "in principle” on only three of many, many issues to be resolved if the UK is to leave the EU (and that remains a big “if”). Aside from the ongoing price tag, there are the three aspects worth noting below. But my overriding concern is that the very reasonable steps which people and businesses are already taking to minimise their exposure to the downside (and maximise exposure to the upside) of the Brexit “Black Swan” are probably the main source of lasting damage for the UK, and unless the Brexit process is soon halted that lasting damage will be done. 

The first area of common ground is that if citizens wish to retain their EU rights (with some family members being able to join them), then UK citizens need to be ‘legally resident’ in (another) EU member state, and EU citizens legally resident in the UK, on the date of the UK’s withdrawal. But they may well need to apply for that status, and this opens a chasm of uncertainty. 

After some scary moments early this week, the UK now seems clear that the Good Friday Agreement must remain paramount. That deal was predicated on EU membership, so it's a Trojan Horse for what the “Leave” camp are now calling “Leave in name only” (or “LINO”). There is no clarity at all, for example, on how the absence of a ‘hard border’ between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland can be accommodated in light of typical import/export checks and other constraints between the EU and ‘third countries’ (as the UK will be). My sense is that there could never be agreement on that, the result of which is stated (in para 49) to be that: 

“the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North - South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.” 

The demands from Scotland, Wales and London to receive equal treatment with North Ireland in this respect also seem to be honoured in paragraph 50 of the report. Other provisions suggest free movement of labour will continue, as will free movement of goods ‘placed on the market’ prior to UK withdrawal. There are references to transitional arrangements but no cap on their duration...  Uncertainty abounds.

There is no mention of free movement in relation to any services, let alone financial services - which are a bellwether for the UK economy. Financial passporting was ruled out by Mr Barnier on 20 November, but perhaps it might yet leap out of the Good Friday Trojan Horse. Be that as it may, there is nothing sufficiently certain on this front that should tempt firms which are currently passporting from the UK to delay the process of establishing new EEA passport ‘hubs’ within one of the EU27 countries by March 2019 (or, indeed, EEA firms from establishing a UK presence). Management and staff will also be considering their own personal risks and opportunities related to this, particularly where they might benefit from rights that flow from becoming legally resident in an EU27 member state before the UK’s withdrawal. 

No doubt there are also people and firms in other sectors who will be similarly disinclined to halt or pause their own efforts to minimise their exposure to the downside of Brexit, and maximise their exposure to the upside. It is this risk management activity in the face of continuing uncertainty that seems likely to cause lasting damage to the UK...