Brexit Discussion Thread.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Thracian said:

That's repetition of what you said before not an explanation as to why the sources you mention are unreliable.

It seems to me that the BBC's situation does represent a vested interest in keeping the EU sweet whether the recipient is independent or not.

If it a benefitting company is owned by the BBC, it's is surely in the donor's debt morally, if not financially in that the debt doesn't have to be physically repaid.

Demonstrably, a company owned by the BBC, havs benefitted and that, to my mind, raises questions about their ability to be genuinely independent. If someone gave significant funds to an organisation you owned I strongly doubt you'd be doing anything to upset them in the forseeable future but if I'm wrong please point out why?.   

 

 

OK then:

 

Heatst.com is a fairly partisan rightwing site owned by News Corporation, a clear competitor of the BBC and so whom may not be relied upon to supply news on a competitor in an impartial fashion.

 

The Daily Mail...well, is the Daily Mail. That's been covered before.

 

The Press Gazette, while of a higher editorial standard and closer to the centre than the first two, still has ties to the Murdoch family.

 

In any case, the money from the EU has zero input on BBC political programming if that third article is indeed to be believed.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

OK  then:

 

Heatst.com is a fairly partidon't rightwing site owned by New s Corporation, a clear competitor of the BBC and so whom may not be relied upon to supply news on a competitor in an impartial fashion.

 

The Daily Mail...well, is the Daily Mail. That's been covered before.

 

The Press Gazette, while of a higher editorial standard and closer to the centre than the first two, still has ties to the Murdoch family.

 

In any case, the money from the EU has zero input on BBC political programming if that third article is indeed to be believed.

Youre saying that any organisation that accuses the BBC of bias must be biased itself so you dont have to believe it. How are you any different to thracian?

[Carl the Llama]

Guys for the love of Christmas is it really that hard to separate the people from the organisation?  Or indeed news and entertainment?  Lots of times I'll be watching a BBC panel show and one of the guests will make a joke which betrays their preference for the EU, that's their opinion sneaking out, not them following a party line the BBC fed to them, and conservative guests on, say, HIGNFY do the exact same so I don't see the issue there.

 

When it comes to the news I challenge anyone to provide a link to a BBC news article/video/whatever which demonstrates obvious political bias.

 

For goodness sake this is the organisation that bothered putting serious interviews with Trump supporters up on their site during the US election campaign while left-wing media stateside was laughing at them all with clips of stupid rednecks who had no grasp of the issues.

[Thracian]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

OK then:

 

Heatst.com is a fairly partisan rightwing site owned by News Corporation, a clear competitor of the BBC and so whom may not be relied upon to supply news on a competitor in an impartial fashion.

 

The Daily Mail...well, is the Daily Mail. That's been covered before.

 

The Press Gazette, while of a higher editorial standard and closer to the centre than the first two, still has ties to the Murdoch family.

 

In any case, the money from the EU has zero input on BBC political programming if that third article is indeed to be believed.

In terms of the sources I know the standards required at two of them and have no doubts about their credibility.

 

As for the impact or consequences of the EU's financial input that's a matter of opinion but  if I owned a company that was operated independently by third party individuals I would feel morally compromised if the EU or anyone else blessed it with supportive funds.

 

Even if there was no financial benefit to myself. Imagine its, say,   a junior football club you might be facilitating, but not personally running, as a benevolent social but promotional exercise and someone pitched in with £1m  on condition you and your other organisations either supported or didn't criticise, say, the environmental stance they were taking in the area concerning, say, fracking, what would you do?

 

In my opinion you'd have two choices. Turn down the money or agree to the conditions.  It's not known whether there were conditions attached to the EU money. But it wasn't turned down and, even without specific conditions, do you really think the BBC would bite the hand that feeds them directly or indirectly?

 

Be honest. Forget your own views for a minute and ask yourself the questions.

 

    

[davieG]

Surely it depends on the principals that organisation holds, would a local Labour council feel compelled to 'support' the Tories if they'd just received a big grant from them?

[davieG]

Brexit: Single market benefit 'largely imaginary'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Thracian said:

Forget your own views for a minute

Bit rich

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Webbo said:

Youre saying that any organisation that accuses the BBC of bias must be biased itself so you dont have to believe it. How are you any different to thracian?

Not any organisation, just ones with vested interests. The Times, The Economist and The New Statesman are three publications I can think of off the top of my head that are pretty close to centre and report impartially - if one of them came up with a story regarding BBC bias I would listen to it. There are no doubt others, too.

 

 

4 hours ago, Thracian said:

In terms of the sources I know the standards required at two of them and have no doubts about their credibility.

 

As for the impact or consequences of the EU's financial input that's a matter of opinion but  if I owned a company that was operated independently by third party individuals I would feel morally compromised if the EU or anyone else blessed it with supportive funds.

 

Even if there was no financial benefit to myself. Imagine its, say,   a junior football club you might be facilitating, but not personally running, as a benevolent social but promotional exercise and someone pitched in with £1m  on condition you and your other organisations either supported or didn't criticise, say, the environmental stance they were taking in the area concerning, say, fracking, what would you do?

 

In my opinion you'd have two choices. Turn down the money or agree to the conditions.  It's not known whether there were conditions attached to the EU money. But it wasn't turned down and, even without specific conditions, do you really think the BBC would bite the hand that feeds them directly or indirectly?

 

Be honest. Forget your own views for a minute and ask yourself the questions.

 

    

Then it appears we have reached an impasse regarding the sources - fair enough.

 

And I maintain the position that while that money wasn't used for BBC political programming, nor for any critical area of infrastructure or upkeep that would mean demands could be made regarding it, it has zero relevance in a bias discussion anyway.

[Thracian]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Not any organisation, just ones with vested interests. The Times, The Economist and The New Statesman are three publications I can think of off the top of my head that are pretty close to centre and report impartially - if one of them came up with a story regarding BBC bias I would listen to it. There are no doubt others, too.

 

 

Then it appears we have reached an impasse regarding the sources - fair enough.

 

And I maintain the position that while that money wasn't used for BBC political programming, nor for any critical area of infrastructure or upkeep that would mean demands could be made regarding it, it has zero relevance in a bias discussion anyway.

I didn't imagine you would believe anything else. That the BBC is biased is beyond question. Convincing those who don't wish to be convinced is quite something else. 

[Thracian]

6 hours ago, davieG said:

Surely it depends on the principals that organisation holds, would a local Labour council feel compelled to 'support' the Tories if they'd just received a big grant from them?

The question has been put as to whether any funding obliges the BBC not to make any disparaging reference to the EU and has not been answered to my knowledge.Perhaps it needs asking again. As for the example you give, you know and I know it would never happen. But the EU funding is a fact.       

[davieG]

24 minutes ago, Thracian said:

The question has been put as to whether any funding obliges the BBC not to make any disparaging reference to the EU and has not been answered to my knowledge.Perhaps it needs asking again.   

I get that and you say because they are receiving funding from the EU and I'm saying it depends on their integrity and basic principles, you're suggesting they have none or very little. What evidence do you have that they deliberately favour the EU?

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Thracian said:

I didn't imagine you would believe anything else. That the BBC is biased is beyond question. Convincing those who don't wish to be convinced is quite something else. 

Then it appears we must agree to disagree. And I would repeat the final sentence right back.

[Thracian]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

I get that and you say because they are receiving funding from the EU and I'm say it depends on their integrity and basic principles, you're suggesting they have none or very little. What evidence do you have that they deliberately favour the E?

I don't think they lack principles - quite the contrary. I believe they wish to impress various principles on the rest of us. Where the money is concerned I believe the backing itself makes them beholden, for want of a better word.

Put another way it amounts to a conflict of interest. I registered  BBC bias quite noticeably in the pre-referendum debates but didn't take notes that I can quote to you.

However there seems to be enough examples on the net which, while they may not represent catagoric proof, would seem to raise the question pretty sternly. When I've more time I'll perhaps try to be specific but generally I feel political debate on here to be virtually purposeless because most commentators seem to have set viewpoints and some would doubtless say I'm one of them.

Indeed politics whether at a distance or when I'm personally involved, always leaves me utterly frustrated and wanting to step aside to avoid wasting my time and breath.

And I'd do that permanently if people on here weren't continually trying to force their misguided opinions on everyone else despite the untold damage such philosophies have already created or assisted. .

Even on here today people seek to minimise the impact and consequences of yesterdays terrorism and doubtless other terrorist attrocities in the past, suggesting (quite rightly) that terrorists feed on publicity.

Unfortunately though, such bland statements don't deal with terroriism or terrorists. Yet, almost to a person, people who commit terrorist acts, are actually known to the authorities before the event - but not dealt with for one reason or another - including reasons created by our own misguided idealism.

There's almost an attitude of "forget it and it'll go away". But it doesn't go away and the loss of life and life-changing injuries to some of the many people involved in yesterdays outlook, will be anything but forgotten.

Instead they will impact on countless families for years and perhaps even the rest of their days.

And mostly because, while some put their own lives on the line to defend against terrorists and those who aim to harm our basically tolerant society, just as many (or seemingly more, judging by the noise they make), simply refuse to take responsibility for doing all they can to counter terrorism and radical influences within our society or to believe that every concession made to those who detest our way of life is a weakness that will only be further exploited over time.  

Some of course are acting for their own ends and the furtherance of their own agendas.

But there are those within our own communities whose flawed thinking only serves to make the problems infinitely more difficult to solve or even contain. They fail to accept that we are under attack not just from violent terrorists but also skilled strategists and propagandists and not by chance or accident.

The fight is not just with weapons but on all sorts of fronts, in all sorts of ways, in so many different places and at every level. And our country is creaking as a consequence.

A once green and pleasant land  that was once so safe and relaxing to live in we didn't need masses of security cameras and legions of armed police on the streets of our capital.  

      

[Thracian]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then it appears we must agree to disagree. And I would repeat the final sentence right back.

We nearly always disagree so i wouldn't worry.  

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, Thracian said:

That the BBC is biased is beyond question.

To you perhaps. I don't much care for their idea that impartiality is based on minutes per side in coverage, it gives far too much air time to quacks like anti-vaccers, homeopaths, creationists and the like, but they do make every attempt to be impartial; they're hardly an obviously biased outlet like the guardian or the mail. 

[Webbo]

15 hours ago, davieG said:

I get that and you say because they are receiving funding from the EU and I'm saying it depends on their integrity and basic principles, you're suggesting they have none or very little. What evidence do you have that they deliberately favour the EU?

I wouldn't say they deliberately favour the EU , they favour the EU because that's the kind of people they are, liberal, London based, metropolitan, do gooders. They report the potential downsides of Brexit because they can't see  other. They never report any potential upside because how can there be?

 

Unexpected growth in the economy, fall in unemployment? It's always despite brexit, never because.

[davieG]

28 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I wouldn't say they deliberately favour the EU , they favour the EU because that's the kind of people they are, liberal, London based, metropolitan, do gooders. They report the potential downsides of Brexit because they can't see  other. They never report any potential upside because how can there be?

 

Unexpected growth in the economy, fall in unemployment? It's always despite brexit, never because.

I think when you say things like that it shows your prejudice.

 

I voted leave and I manage to find plenty of stuff that wasn't pro remain.

 

Posted above from the other day.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

I think when you say things like that it shows your prejudice.

 

I voted leave and I manage to find plenty of stuff that wasn't pro remain.

 

Posted above from the other day.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

I've never denied being biased, we all are in our own way.

 

That's is on the website, was that reported on the TV? Genuine question, I've been out of the country for a few days.

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I've never denied being biased, we all are in our own way.

 

That's is on the website, was that reported on the TV? Genuine question, I've been out of the country for a few days.

I don't know, there's only been mass coverage of the McGuinness death and the Westminster even so not watched it much, 

 

How can you say they're biased when because of your own bias you choose what you want to see.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

I don't know, there's only been mass coverage of the McGuinness death and the Westminster even so not watched it much, 

 

How can you say they're biased when because of your own bias you choose what you want to see.

I  say they're biased because I believe they are biased and for the reasons I stated above. They're not deliberately trying to change people's minds, just showing their own prejudices.

 

You're entitled to disagree though, I'm a tolerant guy.

[davieG]

EU 'not in hostile mood' as Brexit talks beckon, says Juncker

Katya AdlerEurope editor

3 hours ago

 

From the sectionEurope

Share

Media captionJean-Claude Juncker: EU will negotiate in 'friendly and fair way'

"It's like musicians in their bow-ties playing on board the Titanic," remarked a friend of mine as I was talking to them about the EU's 60th anniversary celebrations in Rome.

A mild exaggeration, shall we say - but the image sticks in my mind.

Because as the leaders of the EU's 27 countries clink champagne glasses in plush, security-tight surroundings on Saturday - all is not well in the Europe outside their gates: youth unemployment persists (especially in the south), terror attacks, illegal migration, inequalities in the Eurozone, Brexit and a tide of anti-establishment populist nationalism across much of the bloc.

To name a few of the challenges. Not to mention "strongmen" Presidents Trump, Putin and Erdogan who all eye the EU with suspicion and some animosity.

"Yes," conceded European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker to me in an exclusive interview. "We are not in the best form and shape we could be in."

But, he insisted, the EU was still young, adding that what the bloc had achieved in six decades was remarkable - Europe is now a continent of stability and peace.

Five scenarios

But that was the vision, the goal after World War Two, I countered.

Surely there's a need for a new vision? Something to capture the public imagination. To re-enchant the disenchanted?

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionThe EU marks its birthday on Saturday, while the UK will trigger Article 50 on Wednesday

Mr Juncker recently published a White Paper on the future of the EU. where he explored five different scenarios - from increased union to paring pooled powers back to the common market only.

In between, he breathes life into the old idea of a "two-speed Europe" - where some countries share more sovereignty for example over defence or migration, while others opt out.

That proposal appears to be the most popular amongst politicians and civil servants, but to me it sounds like an open admission that there is, in fact, no common EU vision - with everyone doing different things at different times.

All this at a very sensitive moment - when one of the EU's biggest and most influential members, the UK, is about to walk out of the door.

And unity amongst the remaining 27 countries is key for Brussels - to prove to the outside world that the EU still stands strong.

Nexit, Oexit, Dexit, Frexit...

Theresa May's absence at the 60th birthday bash on Saturday will be screamingly noticeable.

"Of course we will miss her," President Juncker told me.

"I am everything but in a hostile mood with Britain. Britain is part of Europe, and I hope to have a friendly relationship with the UK over the next decades."

Media captionBrexit divorce: 'conscious uncoupling' or bitter breakup?

Well, that of course will depend on what kind of future relationship the UK and EU can hammer out during Brexit negotiations.

I wondered how the EU would balance the competing desires to keep the UK close yet not give it too good a deal so as to avoid the risk of other EU countries walking away?

Mr Juncker admitted he did not want any more "exits": Nexit, Oexit, Dexit, Frexit or otherwise.

That would be the end, he said, if three, four or five more countries left. The EU would collapse.

But he doesn't believe that will happen.

The EU and the Commission, he said, would negotiate with the UK in a friendly way - fair but never naive.

£50bn divorce bill

Interesting choice of adverbs there. Echoed precisely in a speech delivered on Thursday by the EU's chief Brexit negotiator - Commission man Michel Barnier.

"Not naive"…

Now, does that refer to talk of the UK aiming to cosy up to individual EU countries (like the Baltic nations with promises of security co-operation) to cajole them into pressing for a good trade deal for Britain?

Or does it perhaps allude to the government rejecting the idea of an "exit bill" as part of the EU divorce?

It's an invoice that Mr Juncker insists must be paid.

"You cannot pretend you were never a member of the union," he practically spluttered.

"The British government and parliament took on certain commitments as EU members and they must be honoured. This isn't a punishment or sanctions against the UK."

Despite mutterings about the Commission drawing up a £50bn ($63bn) bill, Mr Juncker said the precise amount remained to be "scientifically calculated."

But one thing he insisted that could not be haggled over was the fate of the 4.5 million EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens currently living across the EU.

President Juncker said no-one had a right to eject them from their homes and jobs.

"This is not about bargaining," he insisted. "This is about respecting human dignity."

'Failure and tragedy'

As they mark the EU's anniversary on Saturday, the bloc's remaining leaders will look with furrowed brows towards the future.

But they may well take heart in a new trend emerging.

While populist nationalist, anti-establishment candidates enjoy strong followings, at the same time unashamed Europhiles like the youthful leader of the Netherlands Green party, the French presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron and the German candidate for Chancellor Martin Schulz resonate with the large sections of the public too.

But Mr Juncker and others I've spoken to in the lead-up to the EU's anniversary, like his Vice-President Frans Timmermans and Antonio Tajani, the new President of the European Parliamant, all believe this is no time for complacency.

In just a few days' time Britain will deliver a letter to Brussels, officially triggering the countdown to Brexit.

How will Mr Juncker feel that day, I asked.

"Sad," he replied. "It's a tragedy.

"A failure and a tragedy."

[Thracian]

11 hours ago, The Doctor said:

To you perhaps. I don't much care for their idea that impartiality is based on minutes per side in coverage, it gives far too much air time to quacks like anti-vaccers, homeopaths, creationists and the like, but they do make every attempt to be impartial; they're hardly an obviously biased outlet like the guardian or the mail. 

 

No-one has suggested the Guardian, Mail (or Mirror, for instance) are not biased. They clearly are but their stance is widely acknowledged and admitted. The point about the BBC is that they are supposed to be impartial. 

[Thracian]

56 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I've never denied being biased, we all are in our own way.

 

That's is on the website, was that reported on the TV? Genuine question, I've been out of the country for a few days.

There's a big difference between being biased (holding a particular viewpoint) and refusing to see any merit or truth in opposing argument. 

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Thracian said:

There's a big difference between being biased (holding a particular viewpoint) and refusing to see any merit or truth in opposing argument. 

But that's what you're doing you so completely believe that the BBC is biased that you're seemingly not prepared to consider that you might be wrong or at least they are not as biased as you believe.

[Thracian]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

But that's what you're doing you so completely believe that the BBC is biased that you're seemingly not prepared to consider that you might be wrong or at least they are not as biased as you believe.

The BBC is blatantly biased and would have more respect from me if they admitted it. But their mandate requires them  to be impartial. Being biased doesn't mean they're wrong - just presenting their coverage under false pretences. All sorts of media organsiations are biased but admit it and you view their campaigns accordingly. 

 

On here I find it appalling that a paper presents a link that shows its bias and people immediately ignore it as if it can't be true. But the facts presented are quite likely to be very true given the known bias and the question for the reader would be ascertaining whether those facts reflected the broader truth or whether they ignored other facts which argued to the contrary.

 

With the BBC they sometimes get involved in presenting facts they want to promote in a persuasive way (while ignoring contrary facts) but equally annoying is when they get subtle and allow a voice they favour to be heard without interruption but either cut the time or constantly interrupt a person they don't ish to promote - unless they can strengthen their argument by letting that person talk even longer.

 

Such instances are many and varied.