Surrender to Stupidity

The Surrender Bill is getting a lot of bloated attention. Just pause for a second. The executive head of our democratic parliament, our Prime Minister, is rubbishing his parliament that has democratically decided that we must not leave the EU without a deal. If he feels so strongly against it, he should present a counter Bill to nullify it. But of course he cannot, as he does not have a majority in the House nor within his own Party.

Bluff and bluster may be a successful at a personal level but you cannot run a country by bluff and bluster. In a sales pitch you might get away with pretending you will just walk away. But not at National levels. The bluff that UK will walk without agreeing a deal is utter nonsense. The EU knows it, most of the country knows it, so why discredit your integrity by pretending to hold an impossible position. The rest of the sane world knows there is too much at stake. The breakup of the United Kingdom for one. Turning our backs on our closest neighbours is another. Unravelling 40 years of close integration is another, but the list goes on and on. At some point an agreement with the EU will have to reached. Not facing that reality, holding up the pretence of another (unspecified) option will result in a lot of pain and damage.

Another bluff tactic is to claim that the Country has Decided. No it did not. Half the country definitely did not decide to leave. It is worth recalling that the ripples of a divided nation, catholic v protestants lingers on even to this day. Our Nation is divided over the EU. As in all inflamed disputes, in the end the opposites just have to sit down, talk and reach an agreement. That is what a Prime Minster worthy of the position should be doing, Not fanning the flames of discord.

As our Prime Minster continues to fail to recognise and respond to the deep division within our country, what are we to do? Twiddle our fingers whilst grabbing unquestioningly every soothing soundbite offered, lap up all the electoral gift baubles as if they were substantive and a real, or do we demand better? Is the retention of a United Kingdom worth fighting for? Are we really content to retreat to a gated community to keep all those unpleasant neighbours at arm’s length, do we really want to surrender having any voice in the world that is listened to? Do we want a fantasy future or face up to the hard issues before us? For that we need a Parliament that reflects all of us and a Prime Minster who has integrity, able to seek accord and with a vision which does resonate with our core values.

Blinkered BBC

The BBC, in all of its various outputs, goes out of its way to demonstrate no political bias and senior management will vigorously defend their record, over the longer term if not by each hour. No issue there. However they have consistently fallen hook line and sinker over the last two years into the Farage trap and parrot fashion repeat his selected media slants as if that was fact and widely endorsed. No it isn't. So what is going on? The Farage emotive shorthand is that Britain has decided to leave the EU. That is the starting point, the underlying premise of all subsequent interviews and rationale for the oh so many programmes devoted to questioning and analysing the 'Brexit' debates. Britain most clearly did not decide. There was vote and there was a result, a split country, half and half with the leave side having the 'majority' by such a small margin. So small a margin that could, would, maywell have shifted several times either way in the space a couple of days depending who was sick, recovered,  whop left or came back from holiday, was or wasn't in a meeting elsewhere, submitted a spoilt paper or just was confused at the time. Such a small margin does not support the claim that "Britain decided". It suits Farage's soundbite politics to wrap it up so, but the BBC should not have been drawn in and persistently using that phrase as their reference point. It is wrong and slants all sequential comments.

This vote was not a vote for the first past the post two party election. This vote does not result in sequences of measure being put before Parliament to consider, reflect and endorse. This vote does not time lapse after five years for the country to reconsider and possibly make a different choice. No this vote has finality, the either country leaves the EU or stays within the EU. No wonder with a split Nation, referred to but only in the context of the 'decision to leave', the nation and its political party representatives cannot arrive an outcome that looks bothways and suits those that want to remain and those that want to leave. That is the issue the BBC should be presenting, not as a footnote but as the premise for all programming formats. Instead they capitulate to the Farage soundbite. So wrong.

The referendum designed as a sticking plaster over the Conservative Parties divisions was deeply flawed in its concept. But that is now history and we are stuck with an inconclusive outcome that is defying all attempts to bridge an impossible divide across the nation. So how should the BBC have responded and demonstrated its impartiality? If you can accept, which I cannot, that there was a decision with the merest of margins then the BBC should have setout to question the 'Remain in EU' benefits and show how they could be better served by 'Leave the EU'. Equally they should have tested all the supposed benefits from leaving the EU. Those two approaches should have been the rockbed for all programming decisions. Instead the BBC defers to the Farage rhetoric, and follows his lead and agenda. Why on earth is so much BBC media time allocated to "No-Deal Brexit", that Farage construct, dismissed by anyone who has a glimmer of understanding of the world political arena.

In a balanced society the high-octave emotive promises offered by 'Brexit' should have been countered by rigorous matter-of-fact explanations of the benefits that flow out of our EU membership. I can scarcely recollect any discussions where these pro-EU arguments were presented. The only counter, the bias balance to this Brexit posturing was by putting 'Remain' spokespersons on the backfoot to respond to the latest outrageous fantasy claims put out by the Brexit flavour of the moment face. Almost all Brexit stories were led by a Brexit at any cost spoke person, so all those Tories who clearly didn't want Brexit at any cost, all those Tories who wanted to remain within the EU, got scant coverage. Or if given a voice only to have them then counter the latest wild assertions. Bias? Oh yes. The BBC has signally failed to get above this story and set it into the so needed bigger picture. Without the BBC's leadership what chance does the nation have to absorb the real, not the emotive issues, and reach a consensus understanding where the Nation might be able to unite behind it. The BBC has let us all down spectacularly in our hour of most need.
.