BBC – Brexit Bashing Corporation

Five years to the day since Britain officially left the EU (31 Jan 2019), grouchy old Auntie Beeb has taken the opportunity to again highlight what ‘she’ (and I already regret anthropomorphising this corporation of liberal progressive sinecurism) feels about Brexit. Of course, it’s all done with ‘impartiality’ and ‘balance’; we know that from her self-declared avowals and the oh-so-impressive reassurance that the anniversary briefing comes under the news’ ‘Verify’ heading. So that’s completely kosher, then, m’kay?

Although the corporation is nowhere near as biased as it used to be, as usual, it’s the sins of omission of the BBC (and most of the others) that cry out the loudest. Let’s take a closer look at the shakier aspects of their ‘Five key impacts of Brexit five years on’ feature as per their TV programme and website.

1. Trade. The BBC still maintains that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is ‘independent’. This is yet another quango for the great and good, peopled with establishment Remainers. Its long-propounded figures that Brexit will cause Britain to see a reduction in trade by 15% and in GDP by 4% is cited again. Yet these are not only long-term predictions (and the OBR has a poor track record here), but they are assumptions based on UK governments not taking advantage of economic freedoms conveyed by Brexit. That said, successive UK governments, imbued with Remainerism, have singularly failed to pursue these advantages. But that is a matter of government policy. Consequently, trade may well suffer in the intermediate term. But it needn’t.
2. Immigration. An abysmal post-Brexit failure, to be sure. However, the news programme, either ignorantly or disingenuously, claimed that a premise of Brexit was that it would make a reduction in immigration happen. Hmm…not entirely. Only governments can do that. Brexit merely gives governments the opportunity to tackle the issue. Remainers like to propagate the myth that the Brexit movement was somehow a political party issuing a manifesto for government. This, of course, is nonsense. It was a referendum, not a general election.
3. Travel. Increased hassles in traveling to the EU are stressed here. Fair enough. But these are minimal. And I don’t suppose that a factory worker in Sunderland or, for that matter, 99.9% of the entire population are going to be much affected by now only being allowed to stay in Europe for six months annually. Even the BBC execs with their second homes in Tuscany and Provence won’t be troubled by this. (Unless they choose to home-work from sunnier climes.) On this, France24, also marking the regretted anniversary, claimed fewer EU tourists were visiting Britain because many now chose to holiday in the Schengen Area. But Britain was never in the Schengen Area in the first place.
4. Laws. The BBC is correct to say that nearly 7,000 EU laws have been retained in the UK. The implication is that ‘Brexit’ has failed to reduce them. Again, this is a matter for governments utilising Brexit freedoms. They have not done so. Parliament is still more EU-sympathetic than Eurosceptic. Besides, the capitulation of Tory governments in the Brexit negotiations, especially over Northern Ireland, hamstrung many of the potential benefits that a full Brexit would have otherwise offered.
5. Money. The BBC reports that the UK’s massive annual contributions to the EU (over £18 billion in its final tranche) are now being saved. However, it draws attention to the £9 billion of that recouped through rebates and EU structural funds. But this is deeply unsophisticated analysis. Soon after the 2016 referendum, the EU was due for its seven-yearly Multi-annual Financial Framework which determines budgets and payments. If Britain had voted remain, only the most childishly optimistic could hope that Britain’s rebates would continue; Britain’s contributions would, of course, have shot up, as the increased price of continuing membership.

Of the sins of omission, the worst is the absence of the elephant in the room (an elephant nowhere to be seen in Broadcasting House): Democracy. As with coverage of the referendum campaign itself, Brexit is couched entirely in economic terms and slight inconveniences to European travel. The EU is contemptuous of democracy; it is not an undemocratic polity, but an anti-democratic one. Our governments, risible as they may be, are accountable to the people now. What price do we put on that? Surely Democracy deserves to be at the top of any Brexit anniversary commentary. That it is not, that it is entirely side-lined, is disconcertingly revealing.