The Blame Game

A comment from a favourite BBC pundit (Anand Menon) this morning...

Quentin Letts (The Times): Jaded old hack though I be, am haunted by footage of Jacob Rees-Mogg and his young son being so menaced by protestors that he needed a police phalanx. This is the most polite of men, with his kid, for God's sake. Weird, bad days. And still that idiot Letwin wants delay.

Anand Menon (UK in A Changing Europe): This is the problem. Trying to blame Letwin for the behaviour of a few idiots in the street.

....reminds me that Emily Mailis tried to blamed Boris Johnson for the behaviour of a few idiots in the street.

Bias, bias, bias

Tonight's Newsnight featured a remarkable report from the programme's economics editor Ben Chu.

It's a fascinating case of BBC bias, especially in its use of 'bias by authority' (we get "analysts" and "experts" and "analysis...by the Treasury") and 'bias by labelling'  (we get "the non-partisan UK in A Changing Europe think-tank" and "credible" and "serious analysts"). 

And, I don't for one moment think coincidentally, every single one of those examples helps Ben to bolster his own argument. 

For starters, I'm afraid, charming as he is, that I don't believe Anand Menon is an entirely neutral analyst/expert. He's never been pro-Brexit, to put it mildly. 

And to describe UK in A Changing Europe as "non-partisan" is only technically correct if you define "non-partisan" as meaning "not affiliated to a party". 

And the Treasury of former chancellors Philip Hammond and George Osborne is far from being a trusted source of neutral 'analysis', given its recent record, so why would large swathes of the public take its word for anything?

Note also that Ben, the ex-economics editor of The Independent, gives Labour something of a thumbs-up in the criticism of Boris's deal - which is unhelpful to supporters of the deal. 

And note that this isn't an 'either/or' kind of balanced report. It's a single-minded argument, with supporting quotes and statistics. No disagreeing voice is included. 

And, finally, note just how inexorably negative it is about Brexit. Twice we get the word "negative" itself, and the piece concludes with the thoughts of "economic damage to the UK".

Kirsty Wark: I will talk to two politicians who oppose the deal in just a minute. But how different is this deal from the Theresa May old failed deal? Of course the backstop has gone - instead, a set of arrangements which critics argue leaves a border of sorts somewhere in the Irish Sea. Beyond that - what kind of Brexit is this? How might it work for our economy - and what about Labour's fears over workers' rights. On which, as you heard earlier from Nick, the Government has made concessions tonight designed to entice more opposition waverers to fall in line. Here's our economics editor Ben Chu on the impact of these historic choices on the UK economy.  

Ben Chu: 

Jeremy Corbyn: So we believe the deal he's proposed is heading Britain in the direction of a deregulated society.  

Keir Starmer: Why on earth would the Labour Party, the trade union movement back a deal which is starting down a slippery slope to deregulation? 

But are they right? What course does Boris Johnson's unexpected deal with Brussels actually chart for the UK? And what does it really mean for UK businesses, for families, for workers? Analysts say Theresa May's deal pointed to a reasonably close partnership with the EU on things like customs and single market rules but that Boris Johnson's putts us on a very different track. 

Anand Menon (UK in A Changing Europe): The key difference for me is the final destination and ultimately there, Boris Johnson seems to want a far loser relationship with the European Union than that that Mrs May was seeking, and that will have economic consequences for us that will be negative. 

High common social employment and environmental standards are mentioned in the non-legally binding political declaration in the new Brussels agreement. And the Government has tonight made various promises to protect those rights, but experts say the Brussels deal itself does not preclude a divergence on these rights an standards over time, giving some substance to Labour's concerns ant deregulation.

Anand Menon: I think what they are saying to some people on the Labour side is look, we are serious about these regulations don't worry about it, we have no intention of cutting standards, the point is while Mrs May's deal enshrined the level field conditions in law, meaning that you didn't have to believe promises, you had the law to fall back on, this is a question of trust and if there is one thing that is in perilously short supply in our politics at the moment it's trust. 

Furthermore, Mr Johnson has made it clear he is aiming for a very limited Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU that members of the Conservative European Research Group have long said they want. So what's the economic impact of less integration with our largest trading partner? Last year analysis by the Treasury projected a negative impact from Theresa May's preferred deal of 3.9% of GDP over 15 years. Neither the Treasury nor the Office for Budget Responsibility have yet analysed the impact of Boris Johnson's deal, but researchers at the non-partisan UK in A Changing Europe think-tank have, and their work suggests Theresa May's deal would have left the economy smaller by 1.7% per capita than it otherwise be over ten years. That's a cost of £500 per person. By contrast, they estimate that Mr Johnson's destination would leave the economy 2.5% smaller, or £800 per person. And if you add in credible estimates of the impact of more intensive trade on national economic efficiency, the potential hit from Mr Johnson's proposal rises to 6.4% per capita, or £2,000 per person. 

Stephen Phipson (Chief Executive, Make UK): Half the exports of the country are manufactured goods and about half of those go to the EU and that is hundreds of thousands of jobs dependent on us having a close relationship, outside of the EU, we understand that, but a close regulatory alignment in a new free trade arrangements that protects those jobs and those investments. 

Anand Menon: What's worrying is the government is doing this whilst denying that there'll be any sortr of adverse effects. 

These are only estimates, with uncertainty about the precise impacts, and the Government insists there will be long-term economic benefits from Brexit. But the choice for MPs, nevertheless, is whether or not to approve a deal that staves off a no-deal Brexit of which serious analysis still suggests we do economic damage to the UK.

Nigel and Naga

Following on from his Question Time appearance on Thursday Professor Anand Menon was back on the BBC as the paper reviewer for BBC Breakfast this morning.

I was intrigued by the heavy-handed way he was introduced each time:

8.18 - Charlie Stayt: Time now for a look at the newspapers. Our guest this morning is Anand Menon, who's from UK in a Changing Europe. Particularly at the moment, and in Brexit times, people are very keen to make sure they know where everyone's coming from who we broadcast with. So just explain - I know you've told us before: Your organisation does what?  

Anand Menon: Well, we're a network of academics and, basically, what we're funded to do is to let people know what the research says. We're not allied to any side. We have to be impartial. We simply say, I've carried out a couple of years research on, for instance, what the economics of Brexit might look like, and this is what I've found.

9.18 - Charlie Stayt: Anand Menon is with us this morning, director of UK in a Changing Europe. Do the explainer for us so that everyone knows who you are and what you do.  Tell us who you are in what you do? 

Anand Menon: We're an impartial network of academics that simply lets people know what the research says. 

Impartial like the BBC perhaps? 

Well, that second introduction was immediately followed by one of the BBC's 'most impartial', Naga Munchetty, letting slip a predictable opinion of her own:

Naga Munchetty: OK, one of the stories that you've picked out....and I will put this to you. I don't understand, or lots of people don't understand, why we spend so much time talking about Nigel Farage.
Anand Menon: For several reasons really. Well, one is he's box office. I mean, he's good, he's entertaining, so the cameras like him...
Naga Munchetty: (interrupting) OK, what's his place when it comes to Brexit negotiations?
Anand Menon: His place when it comes to Brexit...
Naga Munchetty: (interrupting) Now. Not from the start, but now. 

That's all very 'Samira Ahmed' from Naga there, thinking that Nigel Farage shouldn't be paid attention to. 

Here's how it went on. As you'll see, Naga followed through on her first point:

Anand Menon: Now, I think he is positioning himself so that if he can credibly argue that there has either been a watering-down or a delay or a cancellation of Brexit, he's planning to relaunch his political career. And you can see there the danger for Theresa May from her right flank, which is, if she does what a lot of people are saying, which is to softens Brexit, join a customs union, join the Single Market, the Brexiters in her party will be very annoyed and people like Farage will make capital out of it.
Naga Munchetty: Isn't this though, if that's the case, if Theresa May pays the attention to Nigel Farage that David Cameron did, isn't there the danger of falling into the trap that some say David Cameron fell into did, because of the noise, the noise, around Nigel Farage being picked up and being given too much prominence?

Impartial like the BBC, Anand? 

Was 'Question Time' biased against Diane Abbott?

Was this week's edition of Question Time (which, unusually, I watched - and, even more unusually, very much enjoyed), biased against Diane Abbott?

Senior Corbynistas around the Labour leadership are claiming so, and an aide to far-left Labour MP Chris Williamson, Jyoti Wilkinson, wrote the following (which is receiving wide coverage):

New presenter Fiona Bruce came out to address the audience.  Hailed for her performance from the week before by fans, and after happily approving of the sycophantic praise that she was being adorned with from some quarters, Bruce proceeded to warm up the crowd.  I am aware that this was indeed a tradition with former host David Dimbleby, and audience members were encouraged to participate as vocally and enthusiastically as possible.  Nothing wrong with that, an exercise in democracy it would seem. 

However, it was at this moment in time that the real hostility towards Diane Abbott became evident.  Each panelist was given a brief bio; Rory Stewart – a member of the Government, Kirsty Blackman – SNP and a remainer, Isabel Oakershott – ardent brexiteer and Anand Menon – academic expert on the EU.  

When Fiona Bruce introduced Diane Abbott, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to instigate a roast. Comments along the lines of ‘let her know what you really think’ and ‘some may think she is in the shadow cabinet because of her very close relationships with Corbyn, nudge nudge, wink wink’ were made.  This indeed had the desired effect, and the carefully selected audience guffawed in delight as they had now been given licence to air their bigoted views in public.  An audience member in a pinstripe suit commented “I’m going to ask her to do a sum, but she will just claim its discrimination I’m sure.” This level of deliberate antagonism from the BBC is a disgrace, and the institution now desperately needs to be held to account. 

Now these terms were set, the now legitimised hostility became all too clear.  A brief practice session took place, where the most reactionary members of the audience were identified so that they could be returned to during the show.  Diane was given the cold shoulder as the other panelists chatted together chummily, and she was spoken over as if she did not exist.  

During the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty.  Audience members barracked and abused her, questioned her legitimacy and jeered, empowered by the licence they felt they had been granted by the BBC to do so.  Sympathisers such as myself were simply ignored.  At one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour’s polling, both making statements later proven to be false. 

BBC’s Question time is portrayed as a truly democratic spectacle, where the public can engage members of the Government and Opposition, as well as leaders of their field.  In reality, it is far from it.  It is a farcical stage-managed state propaganda tool in which the BBC use and legitimise institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry to stoke up reactionary sentiment amongst the general population.  At the very least the BBC needs to be reformed and we must build a new media.  This cannot be done soon enough.

So did Fiona Bruce single out Diane Abbott for mockery before the show began? Well, we mightn't be entirely inclined to believe a partisan aide to Chris Williamson, but another member of the audience has supported Jyoti's claim that there "was some humour at Diane's expense from BBC staff before the recording", while yet another said that "Fiona Bruce basically made fun of Dianne (sic) Abott (sic) in the briefing before it aired".

I'm assuming these widely-quoted claims are the ones the BBC is referring to when it talks of "reports circulating on social media" that are "inaccurate and misleading", continuing:

We firmly reject claims that any of the panel was treated unfairly either before or during the recording.

We can't be sure who's got it right here not having been there and not having seen the before-the-recording goings-on, and we can never be sure unless a (covert) recording emerging of it, but we can judge the claims about how Ms Abbott was treated during the programme itself.

Was Jyoti Wilkinson - as well as an oft-quoted Labour spokesperson - correct to say that she was interrupted by Fiona Bruce significantly more than the other panelists? Well, yes. By my reckoning, overall, Diane Abbott was interrupted 17 times, whereas Rory Stewart was interrupted 10 times and the SNP's Kirsty Blackman 6 times (with the two non-politicians being interrupted even fewer times).

As to his specific point that "during the debate, the Shadow Home Secretary was interrupted by Fiona Bruce more times in three minutes that the others were in twenty", clearly alluding to the opening 25 minutes of the programme, well, yes, that's an exaggeration but not too much of an exaggeration. I make it 9 interruptions for Diane Abbott and 15 interruptions in total for the rest of the panel during that time.

As for mockery during the debate, well again, yes, I do think that Diane Abbott got least respect from Fiona Bruce this week. My favourite jibe was this one:

Jeremy Corbyn sometimes says you have to talk to people with whom you profoundly disagree. He was talking about Hizbollah and Hamas. [Audience, panel laughter. Strong applause]. Theresa May?

But when Jyoti says that "at one-point Fiona Bruce and Isabel Oakeshott ganged up like playground bullies to ridicule Diane Abbott over Labour’s polling, both making statements later proven to be false", is he right (about the statements)? Well, yes, he is correct that both ladies did indeed make statements later proven to be false. These concerned the polls, and Isabel Oakeshott's claim that Labour was way behind in the polls - a claim Fiona Bruce echoed (including adding a "Definitely".) But of the latest ten polls 4 show a Conservative lead, 3 a Labour lead and 3 a tie, so - despite what Fiona Bruce said - there's no "definitely" whatsoever about the Labour Party being way behind in the polls. Note, however, that Isabel also talked about the Labour leader being way behind in the polls, and about that she's right.

More generally, was the audience biased? Well, despite having Labour Party activists (like Jyoti) in the audience, the bulk of the audience did seem - to the amazement of many Leave-supporting viewers! - to be strongly pro-Leave, and strongly pro-'No Deal' (giving that idea a HUGE cheer). Was it because they were the bulk of the audience, or only the most vocal part of it? Well, it did look as well as sound like the majority of the Derby audience to me - though there were plenty of exceptions. And, yes, Diane Abbott was their main target for booing, heckling and jeering.

As far as Brexit goes, was the panel biased? Isabel herself tweeted "Am I the only Brexiteer?" accompanied by "#prayforIsabel". Was she? Well, yes, if you mean a committed Leave voter who doesn't outright reject 'No Deal'. An audience member, however, took what might be called 'The Rob Burley Line' on this, quoting her tweet and telling her to look to two of the people sitting next to her - namely Rory Stewart and Diane Abbott, both of whom speak (in their different ways) of honouring the referendum result and being committed to us Brexiting (in some way or another, to some degree or another). I'll let you judge the truth of that particular 'line' for yourself.

As for whether the BBC "whipped" up a "hostile atmosphere" towards Diane Abbott because she's "a black woman" or was guilty of "legitimising racism" (as Labour MP Barbara Keeley put it), well, I don't think the BBC could ever be accused of intending that.

There are other reasons to jeer and heckle at Diane Abbott, especially after she opens her mouth.

********

P.S. Away from all of this, Question Time had an "expert" on - our old friend Anand Menon - who Fiona Bruce treated in the usual BBC way. I appreciated his take on a second referendum, so I thought I'd share it will you (just in case this post wasn't already more than long enough):

It might well be that another referendum - I can't stand the phrase People's Vote I afraid - ends up being the only way forward. And I don't think it's anti-democratic. If Parliament legislates for something, that's democratic under our system. But I think you've just got to be honest about how hard and how divisive it would be. 

Firstly, it's hard to achieve, because Parliament have got to agree to legislate for one......and then they've got to agree to a question, which would be a nightmare. 

I don't necessarily think it would be better than the first time round because I still think it would be an argument about a future about which we have no facts. It would be just as speculative and vague as the first one. 

And it would be massively divisive. Because whatever else you think about the referendum of 2016, it was a remarkable moment in our democratic history that mobilised people who either haven't voted or haven't voted for a long time and I think those people would, with some reason, feel a little bit hacked off that they were asked to do it again. 

And the final question I suppose is, would it definitely fix things? And there I'm a little bit uncertain because if you imagine we had another referendum, imagine we got to the stage were Parliament couldn't decide and we defaulted somehow to another referendum and we ended up with the result that was 52-48 the other way on a smaller turnout than 2016, with fewer than 17 million people voting Remain? Would that settle the question? No. 

"Erm, let's get the weather..."

Tonight's PM on Radio 4 featured a remarkable interview between Evan Davis and Lord Lilley. 

It's so remarkable that I thought I'd transcribe it for you - even though, because of all the 'speaking over', it wasn't always easy to hear what was being said.

(Ain't I the martyr?)

Evan's introduction immediately stopped me in my tracks.

I've not listened to PM since he took over (following Steady Eddie's departure), but maybe my monitoring focus should shift there and stay there.

When Evan said that the programme has attempted to get to the bottom of a key issue in the Brexit debate "by examining Brexiteer claims about trade and borders", the thought immediately arose, 'And what about 'Remainer claims? Have you examined those?'

And when Evan cited our old friend Anand Menon as "an expert...from King's College, London", my eyebrows took a distinctly 'Fiona Bruce' turn towards the universe beyond us. Peter Lilley was absolutely right to raise questions about Prof. Menon in response.  

The whole interview is a clash between two people who think they're right, as per their "experience".

One is a politician, the other a BBC presenter. And the BBC presenter's side is the one with the larger bully pulpit. 

So here's the transcript:

Evan Davis: Now, on two occasions in three weeks we've attempted on this programme to get to the bottom of a key issue in the Brexit debate by examining Brexiteer claims about trade and borders. Many Brexiteers think that the worries about border controls in Ireland, or between Dover and Calais, are overblown and that we can cleanly leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union and still easily trade without too much fuss at the borders. Well, last week we used an expert called Anand Menon, from King's College, London, to critique the views on trade and borders of a Brexiteer, Lord Lilley - Peter Lilley - who'd been on the Today programme that morning. Professor Menon disagreed with a lot that Peter Lilley had said. Well, Lord Lilley felt that the Brexiteer case was stronger than implied, and he has joined us now to make that case. Cos I thought on the programme I thought we'd been pretty fair because we'd acknowledged...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Pretty fair?! (laughing) Grotesque! You didn't mention that the professor is not a Professor of Trade or Economics. He's Professor of European Politics. He has very strong views on Europe, to which he's entitled. He's a Remain campaigner effectively, but you didn't label him as such. You labelled me as a Brexiteer...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) No, no, he's not a Remain campaigner. I'm sorry, he's an academic worker. He's an academic worker.

Peter Lilley: He's an academic worker! Come off it! Name me a single thing he's ever said in support of a Brexit. 

Evan Davis: Right. Can I just...the first point which I wanted to...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Actually no, no. I think this whole business raises an important issue. I'm very flattered that the BBC thinks it needs to deploy four people to debunk my pamphlet: John Humphrys; then someone labelled 'a reality correspondent'...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) Chris Morris, yeah, yeah. 

Peter Lilley: Presumably you're not 'an unreality correspondent'? What you're.. (indecipherable) you're detached from reality? This man is deemed to have a special grasp of reality which other people don't. Then you had you; and then you had this professor. Now, very kindly, you're having me back in. But four-to-one seems a little odd. And none of you mentioned a single myth, quoted a single myth, from my document, which is available at GlobalBritain.org, for those who want actually to find out what I said.

Evan Davis: I really want to pin you down, because I didn't think you disagreed with Chris Morris. Most experts and businesses disagree with the way you've made your argument...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) That is simply untrue.

Evan Davis: That is untrue, is it? OK. Through my experience I...Look,...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Hang on, hang on! Let me give my experience here because you've had yours four times. If you'd read my paper, if Chris Mason had read my papers...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) Chris Morris.

Peter Lilley: Chris Morris, sorry...he would have found that I quote a trade organisation representing 19,000 customs, logistics and freight companies across Europe which said all the ingredients to ensure a smooth exit process of the UK from the EU, and which allow almost frictionless trade after the exit, are readily available. I went to their conference to learn more and talk to people. I sent a draft of my paper to four of the people I met. They came back with comments I incorporated. That's what I call 'reality checking'...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) OK, no, let's, no, well that's, that's, that's, that's important, but it is MY experience - and it may be that I'm more in the ambit less of the trade experts and more in those of the EU experts who are are maybe not so much on trade - but I have to say most of them...  

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) You will admit you were wrong...?

Evan Davis: (speaking over) No, I don't admit...Let's go to the next one...

Peter Lilley: (speaking over)...in stating that.this organisation has...

Evan Davis: (speaking over) ...Let's go to the next one...

Peter Lilley: (speaking over)... OK. You're not going to escape from that one, are you?

Evan Davis:  No, I'm not, because I don't...we're not going to resolve it. So you say experts are on your side...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) I'm saying...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) I say my experience is different.

Peter Lilley: This trade association  published it, thought that this paper...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) That's good, that's fine, and you've made that point. Let's go onto another one, because there was a very specific factual thing that you said, and lots of others have said, which is we trade with the US under WTO rules...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Yes. That's not in this document.

Evan Davis: No, but it was said in that interview and was...and it had infuriated some people...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Well, yes. I'm very happy to talk about that. I'm writing something about it now...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) Can I just ask? Do you acknowledge that actually there are a lot of, if you like, side deals that also govern trade...?

Peter Lilley: (interrupting)...(indecipherable) of WTO. There are lots of side deals. I'm writing something about it at the moment...

Evan Davis: (speaking over) So, other deals, other deals...

Peter Lilley: (speaking over)...discussing, separate from what's in this document. And...

Evan Davis: (speaking over) Right. It was said on the 'Today' programme...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) For instance, the EU has 97 such deals with Russia.

Evan Davis: Correct. So the point is very few countries literally trade under WTO rules. And you acknowledge that one?

Peter Lilley: Yes.  

Evan Davis: OK, that was a good one...Erm, do you also acknowledge, cos this I think is an interesting one, that if we had a no deal Brexit there would be borders, or there would be a likely requirement for borders, both in Ireland and a bigger border, more significant border, in Dover-Calais?

Peter Lilley: No. I quote Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue CEO, who has given evidence to countless select committees. who said there are no circumstances in which Britain...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) But we would put a border.

Peter Lilley: Hang on!...we wouldn't need to erect infrastructure or have checks at the border. So the only issue is whether the EU has to. Now, the ERG...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) But he...he...

Peter Lilley: ...has published a separate document which has shown that even under EU rules it should be possible not to have checks or infrastructure at the border. They've been and discussed it for two hours with Mr. Barnier. They got a letter back saying it's very helpful...

Evan Davis: (interrupting)  Just to be clear about what Jon Thompson said. He thinks you can't apply normal arrangement at the border and he has no idea whether the European Union would try and apply normal arrangements because there's...

Peter Lilley: (interrupting) Well, he's not responsible for the European Union... 

Evan Davis: (speaking over) No, no...

Peter Lilley: I'm putting him on the British positive side...

Evan Davis: (interrupting)  On the British side. So there might be a border, a European border, or there might be...the Europeans might feel it's annoying to have no border in...

Peter Lilley: Well, there'll be a border. The question is whether the checks require infrastructure at the border. Nearly 100% of customs declarations are made electronically and actually checked in a computer in Salford but...so that is what would happen to the bulk of them. Now, you may have to checks some animals. We already check 100% of animals coming from GB to EU (indecipherable), very visually and...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) Can I get to a bigger question, Peter Lilley, about whether...Do you...cos a lot of people think the BBC, you know, has put up a politician against an expert and treats them like they're the same, and the public are left bamboozled and don't realise that the expert is the person they should be listening to, not the politician...

Peter Lilley: (speaking over)Well, hang on!

Evan Davis: (speaking over) Do you...? I'm not (indecipherable)...

Peter Lilley: I was responsible for Customs and Excise. I've been Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I helped negotiate the Uruguayan Round, which set up the WTO. Admittedly for two years you haven't had me on the 'Today' programme because you think that expertise is irrelevant, but carry on!...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) No, no, I'm just wondering what you, how you, think in public debate how the public should decide who to listen to?

Peter Lilley: Well, they certainly shouldn't take the advice of BBC reality correspondents. That we've ascertained...

Evan Davis: (interrupting) No, we haven't ascertained that (laughing).

Peter Lilley: They don't even read the documents they criticise. He didn't...he clearly hadn't read the document, otherwise he wouldn't have said that about 'most customs officers not having this view' when the trade association that's mentioned has come out and said we can have frictionless, almost frictionless, borders.

Evan Davis: I'd love to continue this. We're literally out of time. Peter Lilley, thank your for coming in, and I'm glad you had your chance to get your own back on us. Erm, let's get the weather...

The road to somewhere

As regular readers of ITBB and News-watch will know, Radio 4 has taken BBC bias to a whole new high in recent months over Brexit (well, at least until their Trump coverage came along and took it even higher!).

Apart from a couple of pro-Brexit editions of A Point of View (on 12 and 13 July), the channel has offered no other pro-Brexit programmes whilst offering countless anti-Brexit programmes (including major, authored documentaries about Brexit from David Aaronovitch to Gary Younge and Gus O'Donnell). The bias has been off the scale.

The trend continues. This week's Analysis was a Brexit-related edition and, inevitably, a strongly pro-EU presenter was chosen - namely blog favourite Anand Menon of UK in a Changing Europe. 

He expanded on his Saturday From Our Own Correspondent piece and made it even worse, much worse. 

The message could hardly have been clearer: Because of Brexit we're on a road to nowhere. (The programme's recurring musical accompaniment was Road to Nowhere by Talking Heads).

Everyone who matters in EU country after EU country (excepts for those nasty populists) will make sure the UK suffers, all with the full backing of their national publics.

We're doomed, doomed! And Anand sounded intensely relaxed about breaking all of this bad news to us. 

I bet this is going into the Brexit Collection. They really aren't going to offer positive programmes about Brexit any more. John Gray and Roger Scruton on a pair of one-off A Point of Views seem to be all we'll ever get from Radio 4, positive-wise, about Brexit. 

Here's how Anand closed his Analysis:

ANAND MENON: So normally, in a program like this, I’d now reflect on the range of views we’ve heard. But what’s been really striking for me on this journey is that the message from all four countries that I visited was so consistent: ‘We’re sorry you’re going, it’ll hurt us too, but the integrity and the future of the EU are our priorities now. Regret mixed with resolve.’ True – there are 23 other member states who will all have a say, but nothing I’ve heard suggests they’ll adopt a dramatically different approach. The EU’s remaining members are as one on protecting its core principles, even if they have different ways of expressing love you.  So, we Brits have to sit on our blisters, we’ve got to choose the butter or the money from the butter, we have to eat the soup we cooked, and lie in the bed we made. EU countries are not currently prepared to bend the rules to give us a special deal, even if it makes economic sense for them to do so.  When it comes to ensuring the EU’s future, politics is winning the day. There’s a long time to go before the negotiations start, let alone end, many talking heads to debate our final destination, but, for the moment at least, the picture seems all to clear:

SONG: We’re on a road to nowhere.

BBC Radio 4 clearly wants to be on a road to somewhere...namely keeping us in the EU forever.

P.S. Miles Gosnett at Heat Street heard this Analysis the same way that I (and others) did. In fact, his piece quotes exactly the same passage I quoted. (He got there first, but I wasn't copying!). "The programme was hardly a balanced view of where things stand post-Brexit, whatever the BBC claims", he says, accurately. 

He also tells of an interesting, baffling exchange with the BBC over whether James Harding voted Remain on 23 June.

Bias, bias everywhere. And not a drop of impartiality to drink.

Flag of Liberland

Today's From Our Own Correspondent began with a piece from Ireland by playwright Vincent Woods on how: 

...the political temperature has changed in Ireland as a result of Britain's Brexit vote and Donald Trump's Brexit Plus. In a country slowly recovering from its Celtic tiger mauling the potential consequences of Brexit come in a count of hard minuses and the potential fallout from a Trump presidency may add to our woes...

...thus combining negativity about Brexit with negativity about Trump (a double whammy).

Then the BBC reporter I suspected might actually have been crying with dejection at Trump's victory during BBC One's election night coverage, Katy Watson, told us about post-Trump "dejection" in Mexico. ('No me gusta'' might sum up the mood there). She sounded perkier today, bless her, but her tale certainly wasn't a cheery one and she let us into a secret (albeit a secret that wasn't hard to guess a few night's ago on BBC One):

As a journalist my job is to be impartial but it is impossible not to feel for my friends here. 

She certainly showed her feelings on Tuesday night. This morning, in contrast, she gave the Donald a thoroughgoing 'fisking' for his false impressions of Mexico, calling some of his comments "laughable". Courtesy of a friend (one degree of separation) she even got to name check "bigotry, racism, xenophobia and nativism" and connect them to Mr Trump and his supporters.

Hearing all of which (plus having seen her as the US election results were coming in), I don't think it's at all unfair to say that "impartial" BBC journalist Katy really doesn't like the US president-elect.

Liberland

After a piece on Somalia's "negotiated democracy" from Alastair Leithead full of classic FOOC alliteration and assonance (within just ten seconds I noted "complex clan conflicts", "mixed militia", "war tore" and "state structures crumbled"), came a piece on libertarianism in the Balkans (the would-be Free Republic of Liberland - "a gun-toting libertarian utopia", in Jolyon Jenkins's words - between Croatia and Serbia), provoked by the libertarian candidate in the US election (about whom Kate Adie was duly mocking in her introduction).

And, to end, there came a piece by our old (pro-EU) friend Anand Menon "tracking again across a pro-Brexit Europe" [as the programme's website puts it], "doing it again across borderless Europe, tasting the food and experiencing unity as well as division" [as Kate Adie put it, before being sarcastic about Donald Trump].

Our [anti-Brexit] Anand was tasked by FOOC to tell us how we in the UK are viewed by "other Europeans...at this delicate moment". He's still "amazed" at the EU's lack of borders - and he meant it in a good way, finding it wonderful. He used to love travelling across Europe by brain. They love English, "my mother tongue". But there's diversity too - good for food, back for politics. "The Brexit threat" in the Netherlands is that it might strengthen "populist firebrand Geert Wilders", for example. A Czech journalist "in perfect English" was angry about "how some Czech in England have been mistreated since the referendum". Can we capitalise on EU divisions and carve a great future from the EU? asked Anand. Guess what his answer was: No. "Sadly" not. Though they regret our leaving and love us, they are united against us over Brexit and will make us pay. Woe for us! "And isn't it just typical that, just as we're on our way out, the EU is discussing giving free Interrail passes to all its citizens from the age of their eighteenth birthday", he ended. Woe, woe for us for leaving the EU!

It really is amazing just how much bias From Our Own Correspondent manages to cram into half an hour. 

The Final Talk

(With a huge h/t to David Keighley at News-watch)...

Here's a transcript of the final part of Professor Anand Menon's How the European Union Works series for Radio 4's The World at One.

You will note that Prof. Menon is attempting to knock down another major pro-Brexit point: the claim that the EU today isn't what we signed up to. 

He argues that's irrelevant as all the subsequent developments came about through the decisions of member states (including the UK), including the Maastricht Treaty - which rather misses the point, I think, that the British people haven't had a say in any of those massive developments (until now) for over forty years.

Any why are we so different? We'll, for Anand Menon, it's because we're an island (like Ireland, Malta and Cyprus), we weren't traumatised by the Second World War (hmm), and (as per Nick Robinson's programme) we arrived too late to shape the EU in our image. Oh, and we're more mercantile-minded than the rest of Europe (a nation of shopkeepers, so to speak).

Here's the transcript. Please see what you make of it:

MARK MARDELL: How much has our relationship with the EU changed over the years? In the latest of our series in the run-up to the referendum, here’s Anand Menon, Professor of European Politics at King's College London and Director of the think tank UK in a Changing Europe. 

ANAND MENON:  In this referendum campaign there are lots of people saying the EU of today isn’t what we signed up for.

To an extent that’s right - the EU of today isn’t what anyone signed up for, because European integration has changed a lot since its origins in the 1950s. Remember, the first part of European integration was a coal and steel community created in the early 1950s. The EU of today is unrecognisable if you compare it to that organisation. 

But the EU has changed through a series of large decisions to which all member states have agreed. When the treaties are changed every member state be it Luxembourg or Germany gets a veto. Nothing, therefore can be forced on a member state in terms of treaty change against its will. 

This is nicely encapsulated by the famous Maastricht Treaty which was finally approved in 1993. Now, this was a crucial turning point for European integration because European integration moved well beyond the market to lots of other things.  Maastricht laid the basis for the euro. Britain, of course, got an opt-out.  Maastricht talked about the EU having a foreign and security policy, though let's be honest nothing much has come of this.  Maastricht also lay the basis for the EU dealing with issues of justice, borders, migration and so on so, though again without really giving the European Union any powers over those areas.   

The fact is that we in the UK are different when it comes to European integration, and we look at it in a way other member states don't. And I think there are several reasons for that:

One, and it’s hackneyed but probably still true: we're an island and being an island we look at our neighbours differently. We don't get their TV beamed into our homes in the way that you would do if you're French and you lived in Alsace with German TV. We can’t drive over the border to a neighbouring country for lunch. 

There’s also history. The original member states of the European Economic Community turned towards European integration partly because the war had underlined the failure of their national systems – failure either because it had spawned Nazism, in the case of Germany, or because it had spawned defeat in the case of virtually all of them.  We in Britain don’t have those memories and so we didn’t have that sense of weakness that lay behind the initial steps towards European integration.   

And thirdly, of course, there’s the fact that we joined late and that has coloured our experience, partly because we joined an organisation whose rules have been set by other people, there wouldn’t be a common agricultural policy in the way there was, had we joined from the start.  And as newcomers, therefore, we were having to get used to a club whose rules weren’t written for us. 

The other fundamental difference between us and other member states is that for all other member states European integration is an economic project that exists for political purposes. So, to take some examples, the original six joined because they wanted via economic means to ensure peace between them. 

In Britain, in contrast, and because of the circumstances in which we joined, European integration is an economic project for economic reasons. We joined in the 1970s largely because our economy wasn’t doing very well and the continental ones seemed to be doing much better.   

That's one of the reasons why we tend to be transactionalist when talking about the EU - we don't refer to some higher political narrative about how good European integration is, we think to ourselves ‘what are the costs, what are the benefits, and is it worth it?’

This whole World at One series - always presented as 'impartial' - has been pro-EU-biased from the start. It's absurd that the World at One put it out simply as being an academic guide to how the EU works rather than as a 'point of view'.

This has been clear BBC bias in action all week, in my opinion. Only a similar series from a clearly pro-Brexit academic (similarly presented as a neutral, disinterested academic from a think-tank) will suffice to make up for it...

...and I'll go out on a limb right now and predict that won't be happening in a month (or two) of Sundays.


As Hildegard sings...'Anand Menon! Anand Menon!' (music that twice features an orchestral gesture that's been described as like a giant fist rising through the orchestra. See if you can spot it!)

"How the European Union actually works" - a World at One primer

A blast from the past

Radio 4's The World at One began a new series this lunchtime, seeking to explain "how the European Union actually works" and "make it all clearer" to its listeners (as Martha Kearney put it). 

And the first talk came from Anand Menon, professor of European Politics at King's College, London. 

His task today was "to explain the institutions" of the EU.

As he was introduced as a non-partisan expert, listeners would doubtless have been listening for the facts, and nothing but the facts. 

Is that all they got?

Here's Prof. Menon's first talk in full:

People often complain that the European Union is just too complicated and too confusing, but actually it's probably no more confusing than any other political system. The problem is it's a unique system and so it's harder for us to compare it with things we're familiar with. 

There are four main institutions. 

Firstly, the European Commission, which is made up of a commissioner from each member state, under which are the civil servants - the "unelected bureaucrats" so beloved of tabloids. But let's face it, what civil servant isn't unelected? 

There's the Court in Luxembourg that adjudicates on matters of EU law. 

There's the European Parliament, directly elected by all of us, which is charged with providing democratic oversight.

And, finally, there's the Council of Ministers, where member state representatives, including ministers, meet to make decisions. 

So how does this system work? Let's think how laws are made. The European Commission is meant to represent the interests of Europe and so it gets to propose legislation. Then it's the turn of the Council of Ministers where our national ministers vote on the proposals from the European Commission. At around the same time so does the European Parliament, so in a sense our representatives get two bites at the cherry: in the European Parliament where people we elect vote and in the the Council of Ministers where the ministers of our government also vote. 

So what this whole process is about is trying to blend what is good for Europe (the Commission) with what its member states want. And once laws are passed the Commission and the Court then have the job of overseeing what happens - making sure that member states obey the laws they've signed up to. It would be a pretty senseless system if it generated regulations that people were free to ignore. And the ultimate backstop here is the European Council - the meetings of heads of state where David Cameron meets his peers and where the ultimate direction of the European Union is set.  

Now, this isn't a perfect system but it's quite hard to find a political system that is perfect. In some ways it's slightly remote and the lack of a sense of European identity means that not everyone has faith in EU-level democracy, even if we do elect the European Parliament. And, secondly, the system can be very slow, but it's slow for a reason. It's slow precisely because there are so many checks and balances to make sure things aren't imposed on member states against their will.

For me that sounded like an out-and-out defence of the EU's institutions rather than merely a disinterested, academic take on them. 

Anand Menon presented the EU in a very benign light there, didn't he?

He defended the EU against charges of being too complicated and confusing. 

He defended the European Commission against the charge (from "tabloids") that it consists of the "unelected" - and did so through what seemed to me to be a highly dubious point about civil servants everywhere being "unelected". (Doesn't that sidestep the obvious point that the "commissioners from each member state" - who he explicitly distinguished from the civil servants below them - aren't elected either?)

Also, strikingly, he kept using the words "us" and "our", over and over again, in what sounded to me like an attempt to show us that "we" really are closely involved in the EU's democratic processes. 

He made the EU sound much more democratic than many of us think it is, and said it's ultimately under the control of people like our elected prime minister. 

Even the problems of the EU, in Prof, Menon's take, were presented as being "slight", and - it seems - partly the fault of those (silly) people who don't have "faith" in "EU-level democracy" - even if they "do elect the European Parliament".

Anand Menon

******

Now, if The World at One genuinely believes that Prof. Menon's talk was truly 'impartial' then I think The World at One must  be very deeply lost inside the maze of its own pro-EU bias....

....unless I'm seriously missing something.

And there will be more. Martha Kearney ended the piece by saying, "Tomorrow Professor Anand Menon takes a closer look at the European Budget"...

******

P.S. I have to say that for someone chosen by the BBC to give a professorial talk to Radio 4 listeners "making clear" the institutions of the EU, his description of the European Council as "the meetings of heads of state where David Cameron meets his peers" didn't inspire me with confidence.

He surely meant 'heads of government'.

H.M. Queen Elizabeth II and Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden don't attend too many European Council meetings as far as I'm aware.