Does the BBC have a Pro-EU Bias?

[L00b]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there L00b. I've not said it is irrational to want to remain in the EU.

Ah, so there can be a rational case for remaining in the EU.

What it is the opportunity to take back full ownership and responsibility and the ability to hold our own government 100% to account. It is about the British, as a nation, deciding what laws to live under and what immigration and asylum policies to adopt. It is about not sharing these decisions with other nations because different people have different values, beliefs and priorities.

How is the UK sharing decisions with EU member states about immigration and asylum policies to adopt?

 

I remind you that the UK enjoys a Himalaya of opt-outs on these fields of policy, which is the reason why the UK cannot be made to take in relocated immigrants and asylum seekers, nor to partake in the EU's Med policing efforts <etc.>

 

You and the rest of the electorate in the UK have been entirely at liberty to take successive governments to task about the UK's immigration and asylum policies since, well, forever. This being the reason why a Labour government eventually introduced an Australia-like PBS for non-EU immigrants, and why the last government and the current one have been squeezing the tap tighter still, with fairly zealous criteria enforcement.

For me it is a matter of principle and I believe the vast majority of people in this country would prefer this and the only reason the vote is close is because of the financial threats being made.

I disagree that financial "threats" are being made. Brexit consequences are estimated in financial terms, and the estimates are presented.

 

It is far easier, and much more reliable, to estimate what we stand to lose than what we stand to gain from a Brexit, because what we currently have under EU membership is a known quantity and exiting EU membership would put it all on the table for negotiation, the outcome of which would be somewhere between 100% of what we have and 0% of what we have.

 

Only the brain-addled could seriously believe that we could keep it all or lose it all, therefore we stand to lose something. How much depends on how hard the other 27 member states would pull the blanket their way, relative to the UK pulling the blanket its own way. The other 27 members count Germany, France and Italy, which collectively dwarf the UK economically (Germany alone sits higher up the totem pole than the UK).

 

At an even more simpler level, for a few million people with jobs that are substantially (if not entirely) dependent on the EU membership of the UK, it's a no-brainer: vote Brexit, lose their job. Nobody needs to make any threat to them, it's basic logic and self-interest.

The EU has morphed into something most people do not like or want. Most people would prefer it to climb back into the trade body box from where it came but the EU has bigger ambitions and is now using the financial power entrusted to it to coerce people into yielding to its' rule.

The EU has no financial power over the UK, because the UK is not in the € club and enjoys another Himalaya of opt-outs about finance activity without endangering its passporting rights - so long as the UK stays in the EU on that basis, that is.

 

That's how and why the UK has been enjoying domination of EU financial markets through the City and, through that, has been strengthening its global position. The Swiss transit most of their EU/EEA and EEA/rest-of-the-world operations via London.

 

Take the UK and so the City out of the EU = lose the passporting rights. Why would world financiers looking to invest into the EU and extract revenue out of the EU continue to use London then? It wouldn't be long before Frankfurt overtakes London, then No.11 UK loses the City mana, i.e. most of its annual tax take.

 

Again there's no 'threats' in the above, it's simple logic and predictable consequences. As predictable as last summer's crisis (and related ensuing crises since) as soon as Merkel had broadcast her come-ye-all address.

 

You can choose to see the consequences as threats, but they'll happen regardless in case of a Brexit. So either mitigate the threats, or live with the consequences. If you're happy to see the UK fall of a cliff like it did in 2008 for the sake of going it alone, and maybe making a shining go of it but maybe going back to the EU cap in hand in 5 years' time, vote Brexit. If you're happy to keep working at making the UK 'special' within the EU and don't fancy tightening your belt in the next 5 years, vote Remain.

The 'no ever closer union' concession won by Cameron is too little too late.

I thought that's what British detractors to the EU were most concerned about? Edited May 19, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

Ah, so there can be a rational case for remaining in the EU.

 

There is a rational case on both sides... it isn't black and white.

 

How is the UK sharing decisions with EU member states about immigration and asylum policies to adopt?

 

I remind you that the UK enjoys a Himalaya of opt-outs on these fields of policy, which is the reason why the UK cannot be made to take in relocated immigrants and asylum seekers, nor to partake in the EU's Med policing efforts <etc.>

 

Getting rid of the free movement of people rule would require all other EU member states to agree to it. We cannot set our own policy.

 

There are opt outs but there are also work rounds and that is how they will eventually force us to take migrants crossing into Europe. The biggest work round being for states to give migrants citizenship and therefore free movement. At best we have a temporary defence.

 

You can choose to see the consequences as threats, but they'll happen regardless in case of a Brexit. So either mitigate the threats, or live with the consequences. If you're happy to see the UK fall of a cliff like it did in 2008 for the sake of going it alone, and maybe making a shining go of it but maybe going back to the EU cap in hand in 5 years' time, vote Brexit. If you're happy to keep working at making the UK 'special' within the EU and don't fancy tightening your belt in the next 5 years, vote Remain.

I thought that's what British detractors to the EU were most concerned about?

 

What most detractors to the EU are concerned about is the enormous scope creep from the original objective of creating a united trade body. It now interferes with matters that are not trade related and should be left for individual member states to decide on. If the EU climbed back into its' trade body box then there would be also no support for exit. But it isn't going to climb back in voluntarily and a revolt is required. Let's hope the UK votes out and begins the revolt.

[L00b]

There is a rational case on both sides... it isn't black and white.

Indeed. And the debate, and people's reasons for voting one way or the other, extend far beyond immigration and financial concerns.

Getting rid of the free movement of people rule would require all other EU member states to agree to it. We cannot set our own policy.

We are not at liberty to refuse entry to 'normal' EU nationals, that is true.

 

We are however at liberty to inspect and check every EU national wanting to enter (the UK is not in Schengen) and to refuse entry to any EU national on legitimate grounds (criminal record, terrorism risk, Court injunction, etc.)

 

And we are now at liberty to make the country far less appealing (in fact, downright hostile when you consider the UK's average cost of living) as a destination to 'speculative' EU migrants through the withholding of benefits for 4 years (on top of the Habitual Residence Test). This new provision basically extends the long-existing fundamental requirement of financial independence for non-EU immigrants (which are not trivial) to gain a VISA, to EU migrants. Oh, and now far more at liberty to deport EU nationals as well, see the link below.

There are opt outs but there are also work rounds and that is how they will eventually force us to take migrants crossing into Europe. The biggest work round being for states to give migrants citizenship and therefore free movement. At best we have a temporary defence.

Not since 19 February 2016.

What most detractors to the EU are concerned about is the enormous scope creep from the original objective of creating a united trade body. It now interferes with matters that are not trade related and should be left for individual member states to decide on. If the EU climbed back into its' trade body box then there would be also no support for exit. But it isn't going to climb back in voluntarily and a revolt is required. Let's hope the UK votes out and begins the revolt.

Putting aside the fact that much of the EU's perceived meddling in 'non-trade matters' is actually trade-led to impede socio-economic dumping intra-EU, these issues stem from the 'ever closer union' goal, which the UK is now clear of (as are other EU member states, altogether forming a new "non-integrating club" which the UK, should it choose to remain, will head and continue to head for a long time).

 

The UK now has that 'trade body box' within the EU all to itself. And much of what Brexiters complain about has already been addressed, even if they don't realise it:

On 1 January 2014, new rules entered into force in the UK to restrict access to benefits further for EU citizens. All EU job seekers will have to wait three months before they can receive Jobseekers Allowance. This may be contrary to EU law since job seekers cannot be excluded from financial benefits intended to facilitate access to employment in the labour market (Guild 2013). Furthermore, unemployed EU citizens will be unable to claim social benefits after six months if they cannot demonstrate a genuine chance of finding work. This may be permissible, but again much will depend on how the rules are applied in practice (See Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-00745). For EU citizens who find themselves unemployed, EU law requires consideration of links to the labour market and the burden on that Member State’s social assistance system as a whole (Guild 2013). From April 2014 migrant jobseekers will be unable to claim Housing Benefit (Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2014). Any restrictions on the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident in the UK will have to be carefully scrutinised, and their necessity and proportionality demonstrated.

(source Edited May 19, 2016 by L00b

[Zamo]

We are not at liberty to refuse entry to 'normal' EU nationals, that is true.

 

We are however at liberty to inspect and check every EU national wanting to enter (the UK is not in Schengen) and to refuse entry to any EU national on legitimate grounds (criminal record, terrorism risk, Court injunction, etc.)

 

And who gets to decide the 'legitimate grounds'? Oh yes, the EU! We need to make our own rules.

 

And we are now at liberty to make the country far less appealing (in fact, downright hostile when you consider the UK's average cost of living) as a destination to 'speculative' EU migrants through the withholding of benefits for 4 years (on top of the Habitual Residence Test). This new provision basically extends the long-existing fundamental requirement of financial independence for non-EU immigrants (which are not trivial) to gain a VISA, to EU migrants. Oh, and now far more at liberty to deport EU nationals as well, see the link below.

 

You are talking about the 'emergency brake'... which is temporary measure. And we can't make changes to the terms. And when the time is up it is back to doing what the EU says.

 

Not good enough.

 

Not since 19 February 2016.

 

I said that nationalised migrants would have free movement rights, which they will. The changes to deportation rules don't change that.

 

Putting aside the fact that much of the EU's perceived meddling in 'non-trade matters' is actually trade-led to impede socio-economic dumping intra-EU, these issues stem from the 'ever closer union' goal, which the UK is now clear of (as are other EU member states, altogether forming a new "non-integrating club" which the UK, should it choose to remain, will head and continue to head for a long time).

 

The UK now has that 'trade body box' within the EU all to itself. And much of what Brexiters complain about has already been addressed, even if they don't realise it:

(source

 

I do not accept the EU is back in it's trade body box at all. It is still meddling and the deal Cameron 'won' is farcical. We won't ever agree on this so let's just agree to disagree.

[L00b]

And who gets to decide the 'legitimate grounds'? Oh yes, the EU! We need to make our own rules.

The UK does, since these grounds are all based upon national security, risks and social order. Per the examples I provided.

You are talking about the 'emergency brake'... which is temporary measure. And we can't make changes to the terms. And when the time is up it is back to doing what the EU says.

Not only the emergency brake, by far. Have you bothered to check the whole lot, or just stopped at that?

I said that nationalised migrants would have free movement rights, which they will. The changes to deportation rules don't change that.

"Nationalised migrants", eh?

 

What's that, then? My curiosity is well and truly piqued, here.

 

Because the changes I linked to about deportation do not concern visa-holding immigrants or recently-naturalised Brits. They concern EU nationals in the UK.

I do not accept the EU is back in it's trade body box at all. It is still meddling and the deal Cameron 'won' is farcical. We won't ever agree on this so let's just agree to disagree.

Don't quit now, Z, it's only just getting good Edited May 19, 2016 by L00b

[Harrystottle]

So. Back to thee op. Does the bbc have a pro-EU bias.

 

Well today Pat Glass, shadow minister for Europe and Labour MP was out campaigning for Remain. When she came across someone in Derbyshire who called a local Polish family "spongers" because they were claiming benefits, this was her reaction.

 

“The very first person I’ve come to is a horrible racist. I’m never coming back to wherever this is.”

 

http://order-order.com/2016/05/19/remains-gillian-duffy-moment/

 

It was Sawley, Derbyshire actually. This is the authentic voice of Labour, to despise and be contemptuous of the very people their party was set up to defend. After Gordon Brown and Emily Thornberry, there's definitely a theme here.

 

But anyway, it's a big story. Remain say anyone who is worried about immigration is a racist.

 

Not on the BBC it isn't. 6 o'clock news bulletin - no mention of the story. 10 o'clock news bulletin - it got ten seconds airtime.

 

Now imagine if Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage had exhibited this casual contempt of ordinary people- I’m never coming back to wherever this is.”

 

The BBC would have had this as its lead story for three nights running.

 

They are biased on an industrial scale.

[tinfoilhat]

So. Back to thee op. Does the bbc have a pro-EU bias.

 

Well today Pat Glass, shadow minister for Europe and Labour MP was out campaigning for Remain. When she came across someone in Derbyshire who called a local Polish family "spongers" because they were claiming benefits, this was her reaction.

 

“The very first person I’ve come to is a horrible racist. I’m never coming back to wherever this is.”

 

http://order-order.com/2016/05/19/remains-gillian-duffy-moment/

 

It was Sawley, Derbyshire actually. This is the authentic voice of Labour, to despise and be contemptuous of the very people their party was set up to defend. After Gordon Brown and Emily Thornberry, there's definitely a theme here.

 

But anyway, it's a big story. Remain say anyone who is worried about immigration is a racist.

 

Not on the BBC it isn't. 6 o'clock news bulletin - no mention of the story. 10 o'clock news bulletin - it got ten seconds airtime.

 

Now imagine if Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage had exhibited this casual contempt of ordinary people- I’m never coming back to wherever this is.”

 

The BBC would have had this as its lead story for three nights running.

 

They are biased on an industrial scale.

 

Is it news though? They've not given a tupenny toss about poor white people since Adam was a lad, particularly their views on immigration.

 

It was fairly prominent on the BBC news website and as I write it's the ninth most read story. Why, though I'm not sure.

[Zamo]

The UK does, since these grounds are all based upon national security, risks and social order. Per the examples I provided.

 

Yes, based on national security, risks and social order... the grounds the EU permits. We cannot pick the grounds on which to exclude or expel. Unacceptable.

 

Not only the emergency brake, by far. Have you bothered to check the whole lot, or just stopped at that?

 

Every 'rule' has to have EU approval. Unacceptable.

 

"Nationalised migrants", eh?

 

I hate to use the phrase but... you know what I meant! If immigrants get citizenship in another EU country then they get full freedom of movement rights and we aren't free to change that.

 

However you spin it, being part of the EU means we do not have a free hand when it comes to setting immigration policy and deportation rules. Unacceptable.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2016 at 08:40 ----------

 

Is it news though? They've not given a tupenny toss about poor white people since Adam was a lad, particularly their views on immigration.

 

It was fairly prominent on the BBC news website and as I write it's the ninth most read story. Why, though I'm not sure.

 

I think it is more news worthy than what is currently headlining on the BBC... a load of luvvies supporting Remain.

[L00b]

Yes, based on national security, risks and social order... the grounds the EU permits. We cannot pick the grounds on which to exclude or expel. Unacceptable.

You seem to be confusing free movement of EU nationals for selective movement of non-EU nationals, or arguing to replace the prior with the later. I think we both know what's going to happen about that regardless of whether the UK Brexits.

Every 'rule' has to have EU approval. Unacceptable.

Nope, only the emergency brake one.

I hate to use the phrase but... you know what I meant!

Not really, that's why I had to ask

 

I mean, I understand 'immigrants granted right of residence' and 'naturalised persons' just fine, even 'untermensch'...but "nationalised migrants"? That's a new one.

If immigrants get citizenship in another EU country then they get full freedom of movement rights and we aren't free to change that.

Correct.

 

And guess what: that's not an EU prerogative or influenced by the EU in any way, it's a fully sovereign prerogative of each EU member states (and it comes with a lot of strings in all EU member states I'm aware of, which is why it's pretty difficult to achieve in all EU member states I'm aware of). I've briefly looked into British naturalisation myself. Not a bed of roses. I'm familiar with the French process. Now that's downright thorny.

 

In keeping with the above, thus the full expectation that a Brexit will be followed by a maintaining of the free movement of workers into the UK regardless as a sine qua none condition for full access to the EU market, that 'problem' you envisage will not be prevented by a Brexit in any way, shape or form.

However you spin it, being part of the EU means we do not have a free hand when it comes to setting immigration policy and deportation rules. Unacceptable.

There's no spin here, all I have posted is either documented or apolitically commonsensical.

 

However you 'spin it' yourself, given that the UK is, and has at all times been, entirely free to set its immigration policies however it sees fit for non-EU immigration (coming from inside or outside the EU regardless) without any interference from the EU, and to an extent set and implemented its own immigration policies about EU immigration in the face of the EU (look up the HRT), the only effect a Brexit would have about immigration is to -at best- temporarily restrict the freedom of movement into the UK available to EU nationals.

 

In practice, given that the UK will still be in the EU until the negotiations are completed and the instrument for exiting is deposited (2 to 5 years from June 2016: EU immigration will continue unimpeded during that timeframe in the exact same way it does now), and that the British negotiation crew will be told in the first negotiation meeting that maintaining freedom of movement is a sine qua none condition for full access to the EU market (which the business minded and pragmatic UK Plc will accept), I expect simply continuity (no real changes in practice, other than the kind of stuff already consented to Cameron this past February - which is no different to the conditions long negotiated/implemented by Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, etc.)

 

The immigration theme is a dead horse in this debate and referendum. However much you flog it, however much the coalface reality of the issue may irk you.

 

But keep to your delusions hopes, it's what makes the world go round

Edited May 20, 2016 by L00b

[Harrystottle]

Is it news though? They've not given a tupenny toss about poor white people since Adam was a lad, particularly their views on immigration.

 

As I say, if Johnson or Farage had said it, you can bet it would have been given a lot more prominence.