Brexit and the media

Much of the British media continues to act as a conduit for this summer’s propaganda campaign by Remainiacs. The BBC is blatant. This morning on Radio 4’s Today programme, for example, there was an interview with an expert from the Nuffield Foundation, evidently selected to confirm the BBC’s prejudice against Brexit.

The gentleman from Nuffield was asked to enlighten us about the dire consequences of ‘crashing out’ of the EU with NO DEAL ref the supply of medicines.

[As Iain Duncan Smith has already tried to tell the media, there is no such thing as NO Deal because World Trade Organisation rules automatically come into play – which the BBC in the form of  John Pienaar dismissed as merely “your opinion” on his Sunday am Radio 5 show last month when IDS pointed this out].

The Nuffield expert predicted stock piling, tail backs of vehicle waiting to go through UK customs and there’d be 44 different aspects to verify if the scenario now called NO DEAL came to pass.

No attempt was made to interview any one with a different perspective. Apocalypse and general meltdown of civilisation is de rigeur and assumed orthodoxy chez le Beeb because Brexit is heresy to be eradicated from the minds of the ignorant masses.

It is obvious that the BBC is screening out views and facts which contradict the Europa religion, just occasionally letting something in to preserve a fig leaf of adherence to its supposed impartiality.

A balanced – indeed a truthful view – would have had Martin Howe QC explaining to the ignorant expert consciously selected by the biased Beeb that in fact no such thing will occur.

Why ? Because the Withdrawal Act 2018 carries over the corpus of EU law into UK law and that law allows us to import medicines from Germany, for example, and to treat their compliance routine as equivalent to our own, ergo legitimate. The learned lawyer explains this in his latest comments for Lawyers for Britain [link below].

This shallow, prejudiced and wilfully selective attitude on the part of the media reflects the deeply entrenched mindset of the Remainiac elite which cannot conceive any positives about Brexit [because it is heresy] and so is not even going to look for any contrary evidence.

The mindset is so self reinforcing and absorbed that it can produce nonsense reports about threats to democracy by the Digital Culture and Media committee of the House of Commons.

Their recent report actually accused Leave of corrupting the referendum debate. The committee came to this conclusion, not because they had set out to research the two campaigns equally and impartially according to set criteria, but on the basis that during their deliberations a couple of biased complaints about the Leave campaign were sent to them…

Eventually asked by an interviewer on Radio 4’s Broadcasting House one Sunday earlier this month whether the committee had considered complaints from Leave against Remain Damian Collins the chairman of the committee sheepishly admitted they had not done so because none had been sent to the committee…

In terms of air time and the overall impact of the rest of the nonsense he had talked, this admission lasted but a fraction of the interview which had largely been dedicated to smearing Leave.

This from a Conservative Remainer.

So, I do not hold my breath about the quality and impartiality of the NO DEAL Brexit advice due out from the government this week in preparation for the infamous, so-called NO DEAL scenario come March 29th 2019.

The government is so obviously still in EU mindset about Brexit, that it makes no mention whatever of any of the clear sighted and positive contributions coming out of the leading Brexit think tanks such as Lawyers for Britain and Briefings for Brexit.

All of the problems which Brexit is supposed to be responsible for have nothing to do with Brexit or the Leave Campaign or the Leave vote.

They are entirely due to the persistence of the Remain mentality at the heart of government combined with the wilful and undemocratic intentions of people like Dominic Grieve to overturn the democratic mandate of June 23rd 2016.

Note for example last week’s blog post pointing out that Article 50 should have been tirggered on June 24th 2016 but wasn’t because of Remainiac inertia and resistance.

And they are aided and abetted by the religious adherence to Remain in so much of our media.

But the BBC is a shining example of fair play when put alongside the media in France where I live [and watch telly and read the press].

Last night on the main evening 8pm news on the BBC 1 equivalent channel, France 2, we were treated to a report by a young French woman in London on the possibility of a second referendum.

She stated that the UK does not have a written Constitution [it does, but it is not all written down in one document in one place on one particular  date, and aspects of it are convention].

She went on to state that therefore the Referendum result of June 2016 had no meaning whatsoever…

Just what does she think caused all the upset in British politics since June 2016,  crises in parliamentary bills getting passed, resignations etc …

Just on the point of the constitutionality of the relatively recent phenomenon of Referendums in the UK, let’s be very clear.

The Referendum in our constitution is advisory. Primarily, parliament must act.

But the word advisory means obligatory – ministers advise the Crown. And the Crown can at no point do other than accept the advice.

Every time we have had a referendum in the last 45 years, it has been on a Constitutional issue, and it has been authorised by Parliament with the express intention of implementing the outcome.

That is our Constitutional position.

Parliament is obliged to enact Brexit.

It is obliged constitutionally, politically and above all morally.

If parliament refused to enact Brexit, it would create a constitutional and political crisis of significance not seen since the 17th century ….

The young French reporter said that there was now a widespread desire for a second Referendum in Britain, the implication being that the June 23rd 2016 result can and very likely will be reversed.

Now this  misrepresentation has been asserted on other French media recently, notably the Euro Centric Franco-German TV channel Arte – possibly the most blatant platform for  EU propaganda in Europe.

The assumption in the French media and political establishment is that Brexit is an absurd but temporary aberration which can still be put right, and very likely will be.

So, we are up against a religious obsession with one particular perspective on life which treats any other perspective as unthinkable by rational and civilised human beings. This religion holds that any one who thinks differently is either one of the misled masses [who need re-educating] or a wilful and evil nationalist who wants Europe to descend into the horrors witnessed in two World Wars.

Personally I find Remain’s mindset deeply worrying, and a real threat not just to democracy but to liberty itself.

Witness its wilful selection of facts and partisan spin to suit its purpose, its wilful refusal to respect and implement the June 23rd vote in 2016, its declared intention to overthrow that long overdue democratic vote by the people of the United Kingdom.

See apposite Post Script after links below

https://lawyersforbritain.org/leaving-the-eu-on-wto-terms-pulling-down-the-barriers-to-world-trade

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/

POST SCRIPT

Today’s Brittany regional newspaper, Le Telegramme carries the front page splash headline:

BREXIT: MENACE SUR NOS PORTS !

My immediate thought was they were complaining again about the loss of preferential fishing in UK territorial waters post Brexit – a major setback for the Breton fishing industry [never mind the British to date !]

Not a bit of it. It turned out to be an example of all the media distortion around Brexit.

The issue in hand is: Where will the Ireland bound goods traffic go after Brexit when it can no longer pass via UK if it is to remain within the EU ?

Well, given all the northern French ports such as Le Havre, Calais, Roscoff and Brest it might be expected to go via them, especially as such routes already exist.

But no ! The EU has said that the goods traffic to Ireland must go from Benelux ports !

And the French are not amused. Understandably, perhaps.

Of course, the EU exists for French convenience and for French aggrandisement [see quote below at the end]. And what is more, the Telegramme reports that there is a massive 30 Billion Euro EU subsidy involved for the ports concerned.

But just what did that headline suggest ? Brexit was the problem.

NO, Brexit is in fact an OPPORTUNITY for the French northern ports to take that traffic and that subsidy … But of course, they’re still in the desperately practical and sensible EU, aren’t they, and the EU is apparently deciding otherwise.

Voila, c’est la vie !

And the relevant quotation just mentioned.

La France, par son sens de l’universel et par sa soif d’influence, a impregne, depuis le debut, l’esprit et la realisation de la construction europeenne. Et elle ne continuera a le faire qu’en restant elle-meme, avec ses traditions, sa culture, ses specificites.

Where from ?

Written by that Architect of the contemporary EU framework, that great apostle of the European Ideal for all mankind, none other than Jacques Delors, 6th January 1992 in the Foreward to his most interesting and revealing book, Le Nouveau Concert Europeen published by Odile Jacob of 15 rue Soufflot, 75005 PARIS in February 1992.

Oh, you can find it on page 18 !