How would you like to own an owl?
Thanks for all your comments on the Balkan pieces. I am not going to get embroiled in the central argument at the moment but wanted to reply to a couple of side issues raised.
“How would you like to own an owl?” is the question asked of the bounty hunter cop in “Do androids dream of electric sheep?” the novel on which “Blade Runner” is based.
He's being bribed to give up his mission. He lives in a society where all animals are rare, owning them confers both status and a sense of self worth. Now that’s what I call an inducement to abandon professional ethics.
So for my money, as it were, the story about the BBC getting EU funds doesn’t even come close. But it does make me groan because it makes postings like Brian Whittle’s inevitable.
Most of the money is a loan from the European Investment Bank to the BBC’s profit-making arm , which, I take it, means mainly BBC World.
There is also some money from the EU itself to fund the BBC’s web-based numeracy and literacy campaign .
Flying pigs
I take it Mr Whittle’s prose style is a sophisticated dig at this dastardly European attempt to undermine every Englishman’s right to punctuate as wildly as he chooses.
He writes: “Do pigs fly Mark how much do you get for your Pro comment... get some one who stays in the middle.”
Just for your complete assurance: No, I don’t get any money from the EU personally, I hadn’t got a clue the BBC got any such money and it wouldn’t have made an iota of difference if I had. The middle, or even triangulated above it, is where I try to be.
I know I shouldn’t get riled, but I do. I can’t for the life of me see what “Pro comment” there was in Joe the Digger unless it was his desire to face towards Europe rather than Russia, which is his opinion, rather than mine.
My response to all such complaints has to be: point out what you are specifically unhappy about and I will explain or justify and indeed, if necessary, apologise.
Early day motion
A Conservative MP, Bob Spink, has put down an early day motion, what amounts to a House of Commons petition, on the same subject of the EU funding.
He does have a specific complaint, about the lack of BBC coverage of a pro referendum march at the end of October .
I may be wrong, but I can’t find any newspaper coverage at the time either.
I think most journalists would like the money that pays for us to do our job to descend untarnished from heaven. Any form of funding, whether it is from a government, advertising or a rich proprietor carries with it a potential risk.
As far as broadcasting is concerned, I think the risk is thankfully an unrealised potential. I worked in commercial radio for a long time. Never once did I hear of an advertiser trying to interfere with news coverage.
Equally at the BBC, when my betters have been grappling with the Government over the license fee, no one ever says “pull your punches, for a few months” and, more importantly, the Westminster team has always been as tenacious and questioning as ever at such times.
But if anyone wants to put large sums of money into my bank account, to show that I am not suborned by their cash, I would think it was an experiment worth trying.
Head of steam
But I can feel a head of steam gathering behind another question of coverage. Those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty are asking why there is so little in the media about the Commons Debate.
JorgeG and Max Sceptic strike a somewhat uncomfortable chord suggesting I should be perhaps reporting on “core EU” and the debate on the Lisbon treaty rather than having been in the Balkans.
It's true, I spend much of my time agonizing whether I am in the wrong place.
“Core EU” first. While these last few blogs were published I was back in Brussels doing reports on the climate change package and Commission consumer policy.
And I would argue Kosovo is very much core EU: the police and justice mission are the biggest the EU has ever undertaken, the foreign ministers are riven down the middle and it is the biggest issue on the plate in Brussels right now.
It's one of the bees in my bonnet that many people underestimate the scale of the EU’s foreign policy role and ambition. It's big and it's getting bigger,for good or ill.
Now Lisbon. I could duck the responsibility and say it's up to my colleagues at Westminster to judge if it’s a story.
Failing the test
But the fact is I’ll holler if I think something has been unjustly ignored and I haven’t been raising my voice.
I well understand the growing frustration among those opposed to the treaty that the Commons debate hasn’t turned into a big news story, with even those newspapers with a clear agenda pretty much relegating it inside and down the bottom.
Why is this? In some ways, while the debate passes the current affairs test with flying colours (it's important and you should know about it), it fails some basic news tests.
It's not that new: many of the arguments were aired throughout 2007. It hasn’t been bloody or brilliant.
The Government (almost certainly) isn’t going to be defeated and doesn’t face a major rebellion. This is not an excuse: I am trying to explain it as much to myself as anyone else.
Anyway, I am off to Paris to see how they do things differently in France: on Monday they are changing the constitution so they can avoid a referendum.
We also have the Irish referendum to come. Who knows I might even make it back to my old stomping ground, Westminster, before the commons debate concludes.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments Post your comment
Disingenuous does not suit you Mark Mardell. You have been infected with the Brussels champagne syndrome. The BBC has put positive spin on alleged EU virtues and been uncritical of the EU's devious machinations and now we know why. £141m Shame on you!
Complain about this post
yeah, but where do I get the owl?
Complain about this post
"Anyway, I am off to Paris to see how they do things differently in France: on Monday they are changing the constitution so they can avoid a referendum."
Well you answered your own question. In France, they are still under the delusion that they have a democracy and so when they try to exercise it and thwart the dictatorship in charge by having the audacity to vote against its wishes, the government simply removes the offending mirror and carefully repositions the rest to maintain the illusion. The difference in Britain is that the public was never under any real illusion that there was democracy. How could it be when the upper house which has a veto is restricted to an aristocracy and the head of state is a reigning monarch whose wishes would never be defied by government out of sheer politeness if nothing else. How can it even pretend to be a democracy when the head of the executive branch is a member of the majority party in the legislative branch which must ratify his decisions or the entire government falls and the members of the majority party in the House of Commons with it? What's one little insignificant march? If they really cared, they'd have stormed the palace. Religion might have been the opiate of the people in the 19th century but in the 20th and 21st, it's sports. Who'd waste time on some stupid old march when there's a good football game to be seen and beer to be drunk?
"Those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty are asking why there is so little in the media about the Commons Debate."
The most likely answer is that there is precious little to report. The outcome is a foregone conclusion anyway. France has its Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles and Britain has its Hall of Mirrors in the illusion created by the "Red Lines." All you have to do is carefully go through those 40 odd tedious pages of legalese mumbo jumbo and you eventually get to realize that at best Britain buys 5 years exclusion from those provisions specified after which it either complies fully or faces limitless punishment over which it has no say.
"It's one of the bees in my bonnet that many people underestimate the scale of the EU’s foreign policy role and ambition. It's big and it's getting bigger,for good or ill."
Why should the role the EU's foreign policy functionaries aspire to be any less than any of the other roles? The ultimate objective could hardly be more clear, a single continental power under a single unified authority to rival the United States of America. Having realized a long time ago that individually none of them was a match for it as it eclipsed every one of them individually, their only hope was to band together to form one super duper state. That this flies in the face of a couple of thousand years of intense animosities among Europe's constituent nations, not to mention many animosities within many nations, it makes perfect sense that the role of Kosovo and all of the Balkins is an important element in the ultimate unity, therefore it is incumbent upon the EU to resolve all differences to achieve the greater goal.
The real crux issues of the debate never get mentioned let alone explored. Why does Europe need a super state? Why can't it continue to exist the way it has for the last 60 years? What are the prospects that it could actually arrive at a single consensus that all participants would be satisfied with? What does Britain give up by being a member and what does it gain in return that it could not obtain by other means? And at what point will Britain have gone so far that it can no longer back out if it changes its mind? Will there always be an England? Well the land will remain but what kind of people live on it and what laws and rulers they live under is an open question. To many who have left, they say that already they can no longer recognize it as the home they grew up in.
Me? I'm just an outside observer watching the show from a safe distance. At least I think it's safe.
Complain about this post
Mark,
When in France, could you, please, try and find out why Airbus still cannot be properly reformed and streamlined because of the French (and German) government interference in its management operations, why multibillion Galileo navigational system has turned to be such an albatros hanging from the neck of EU taxpayers, and what is preventing France from being a leader in a process of creating unififed EU military force capable of actual combat, if that country is unable/unwilling to co participate in any tangible way in NATO military operations.
Oh, and why, despite many boisterous pronouncements, there's still no French Google or a computer operating system which would put an end to France's humiliating dependence on Yankee ingenuity.
"Inquiring minds want to know".
P.S. If you could grab and post here a schedule itimizing days on which French trains and metro actually run it would be highly appreciated as well.
[it shouldn't be too big a file]
Complain about this post
Hi Mark,
Thanks for acknowledging contributions to your blog and the issues and concerns they raise.
I believe that you get much 'harder' treatment from us 'Brits' because though this is a truly international forum - something that adds great interest and relevance to both your reports and comments received - it is published online by the BBC, a corporation funded by British taxpayers (whether we wish to or not), and as such we believe that the Corporation should express and pursue British interests. This is not to say that news should not be reported honestly and objectively, but I do expect a British perspective from commentators and reporters (and not an 'internationalist' point of view).
On the positive side, I must say that your reports from continental Europe have all been informative and entertaining (Lord Reith would be proud), and your personal style of delivery is, in my opinion, very engaging. Just one request: Please don't ruin everything by going 'native' like Barbara Plett who shed tears at Arafat's death, or Sir Mark Tully who should have taken up Indian nationality years ago....
Tootle pip!
Complain about this post
Hi Mark
glad to see you take notice of my comments.one day we will get the torys back and get rid of pro brown.Do you not think the average worker whos a cleaner warehousman etc want EU they dont.Anti EU is growing not declining.The EU is nothing more then the next soviet union in the making.The goverment should come clean to the public and even the EU how far the uk is going to go into it ,that way everyone one knows were they stand.
Complain about this post
Good comeback! I chuckled the whole way through the piece!
But of course, to those who see the EU as some dastardly attempt by Jonny Foreigner to take over this fine land, you (and anyone else who ever reports a positive aspect of the EU) will always be seen as the equivalent of a dictatorsip's 'Information' Minister.
To those who think Mark is only ever pro-EU, you might find some solace in the fact that some of us think he can be pretty anti-EU too. Indicates the right balance to me.
As for the Lisbon Treaty, although many people may not like it (don't understand it/one-sided arguments maybe?), the fact is that most people simply don't rank it high on their list of priorities. You won't find two million people in the streets of London, as you did before the Iraq war. Whether there should or shouldn't be depends on your point of view.
Complain about this post
Hi,
That the BBC receive funds from the European Union is well substantiated. That Mr Sarkozy the French president wishes to make a BBC equivalent should be taken as a compliment.. Due to the increasing influence and activity of the European parliament and Union a BBC Europe will become an increasing need.
Regards Dr. Terence Hale Holland
Complain about this post
Carl Fennessy #7
"As for the Lisbon Treaty, although many people may not like it (don't understand it/one-sided arguments maybe?), the fact is that most people simply don't rank it high on their list of priorities. You won't find two million people in the streets of London, as you did before the Iraq war. Whether there should or shouldn't be depends on your point of view."
I'm glad as a curious onlooker that someone will finally step up to the plate and explain something about the EU treaty I've been wondering about for a long time. Exactly what is in the treaty that Britain could not equally obtain without being part of the EU? What provisions of law could it not pass itself in its own legislature that are in the treaty or do Brits have more confidence in the fairness and ability of the rest of Europe to make their laws for them than they have in their own elected officials? What trade agreement could Britain not negotiate with the EU or bi-laterally with its members as an outsider that it will have to its advantage as a member itself? And what does it give up in both sovereign control and money paid out to the EU in return for these benefits?
Don't you think it odd that if people thought they lived in a democracy, that they don't rank the issue of a treaty which will decide how they are to be governed and who will govern them very high on their agenda of things in life? That two million people marched against the war in Iraq shows how easily they are manipulated. More Brits may die the first time an A380 crashes than died in Iraq in 5 years and the cost of the A380 boondoggle will probably in the end be higher than the cost of the invasion of Iraq as well but that was another decision the British voting taxpayer had nothing to say about. So this is European democracy at work.
Mirek Kondracki #4
Don't try to compare European technological or military prowess with America's, it's just one more embarrassment for Europe. BTW, in the unlikely event Galileo ever is successfully launched, you can bet the US will shoot it out of the sky just the way they said they will. Europe has not and will not be allowed to compromise American security. Use GPS, it works fine, it already exists, and it can be turned off or altered to thwart or misdirect a missile attack by a rouge state trying to use it.
Complain about this post
Hi,
Your loyal Europhile readers are impatiently waiting for a referendum to get Britain OUT of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty allows any country to withdraw from the EU.
Please give us the pleasure never to take Britain back, no matter how much they beg!
Complain about this post
I dont quite understand the widespread believe the EU is anything like the SU. Besides their names are similar. The SU took states by force while states want to join the EU out of free will.
Complain about this post
I love reading the headlines in the "being discussed now" section to the right. Based on what I am reading here it appears that the Serbs who have a desire to expand Serbian territory are called - NATIONALIST while Albanians who talk about doing the exact same thing are called - PROUD. Interesting view.
Complain about this post
To echo what Carl says, sometimes Mark can be as much Anti-EU and Pro-EU. I guess it all depends what side of the fence you sit. I personally on the whole support the UK's membership of the EU and am average British worker as Brian puts it. There is lots of good for being in the EU and sure, there is waste and bureaucracy. The good outweighs the bad in my opinion. After all we have massive waste and bureaucracy in our own government, Labour AND Conservative, hell we have it in our local councils and I voted Conservative this time round.
I think Mark has the balance right. I always enjoy reading these blogs.
Complain about this post
Mark, you are doing just fine. The information you provide is correct and unbiased (as far as I can judge).
It is sad that the europhobes are now aiming at you, but it was to be expected. Most of them are petty nationalists who cannot stand the rest of Europe and "Johnny Foreigner". Information is the last thing they need if they want to keep up their prejudice.
Why is there so little debate about the Lisbon Treaty in the UK? Well, there is little interest in "Europe" to start with. And then there is the feeling that the EU is a dirty game in which the British should not be involved. The combination of ignorance and arrogance has never been a good starting point for a productive debate (and you may find the same problem in France, by the way).
Complain about this post
Dear Mark,
Britain should be kicked out of the EU because it does not follow democratic principles. If most of the people in UK do not accept the European project the Government must respect this democratic demand and quit. The new Lisbon Treaty provides for countries wanting to check out of the EU. This way we Europhiles will get rid of this ear-drilling EuroSEptic whine and be able to concentrate on the job.
Please Britain, get out of the EU by referendum and give us the pleasure to never take you back, no matter how much you will beg!
Complain about this post
I have been trying to get a quote from James Joyce apropos the Balkans online for some time but the gremlins keep preventing me. (Joyce lived in Trieste for many years).
A character in his novel Ulysses says that "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken". Serbia wakes up this morning, in my view, precariously balanced on the right side of the bed.
On Europe's "foreign policy role and ambition", lets not exaggerate! The tug-of-war on Europe's defence between the small coalition of Member States led by France and the 'Atlanticist' wing led by the UK was declared a draw by the St. Malo agreement (1998)between Chirac and Blair. ("The Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises").
They agreed because the US simply wants both sides to pull their weight in military terms cf. the recent book "The Monopoly of Violence: Why Europeans Hate Going to War" by James Sheehan, Houghton Miflin.
NATO retains right of refusal before the Europe can embark on any serious undertakings (assuming it had the stomach for them) and it is hard to see Washington not continuing to hold the decisive hand. Furthermore, a majority, if not all, of the new Member States are clearly in the Atlanticist camp (Croatia being the next likely member).
Complain about this post
"I am off to Paris ... on Monday they are changing the constitution so they can avoid a referendum"
I assume that will rule out legal challenges to the treaty in France. But what about other EU countries; might the courts get involved?
Complain about this post
I suppose those who oppose EU loans (given ona commercial basis) for the BBC's commercial arm should be up in arms about the European Investment Bank financing a large part of Heathrow's new Terminal 5 or the chronically needed upgrade of the West coast main line or the large transport infrastructures needed for the 2012 Olympics amongst others.
Complain about this post
Mark, I consider you to be fairly neutral on E.U. issues and have no complaints about your blog. Indeed I find them thought provoking and interesting.
I do have an issue with the BBC in general. Thwere does not seem to be balnced coverage of E.U. affairs. For example I believed the comments made by Daniel Hannan were not so extreme to deserve the grilling he got on the BBC news.
When you read his comments in full I believe he was making a valid point about democracy and freedom of speech in the European Parliament. Perhaps the BBC could grill the people who wanted to stifle such freedoms. Especially as such measures by the E.U. would be purely for the short term gain of preventing dissent about the new constitution.
Also the French are about to change their constitution to prevent a referendum on the E.U., surely this is worthy of closer scrutiny.The majority of French people want a referendum, they voted no previously, they are being denied a cahnce to air their views in the newish constitution. You could argue France has no relevance to us, but I would disagree. It is at least worthy of a five minute slot some where on the main news programmes.
Many thanks again for your entertaining blog - Neil
Complain about this post
Mark (usually) tries to show and explain other people's perspectives, but always from his own, British, perspective. Usually, he does this in a neutral, amusing way.
When the reader has a strong opinion about an issue, he might mistake investigating other people's views as a lack of neutrality. This happens to everyone - for instance, his Sinterklaas coverage did irritate me.
Complain about this post
Mark,
Just keep doing what you do. Your blog is my first stop on the BBC and the only feed I subscribe to.
Complain about this post
Mark,
Please carry on reporting on all kinds of topics that affect all of us that live here in our common European home (whether the countries written about are currently part of the EU or not). The articles and comments are interesting, and lead to a better understanding of the complex issues that affect this Continent, both in its troubled past and in its relatively peaceful present.
The fact that some of your articles are not a platform for the Mr Angry EU-haters is actually a bonus. Their comments are now tedious and reptitive, unlike those written about the contributors to your articles about the Balkans, for example. We actually learn something from those!
To my mind, one of the greatest successes of the EU has been the way that historic conflicts along border areas have been defused. Examples include South Tirol (German speaking minority in Italy), Schleswig-Holstein (Danish speaking minority in Germany), Northern Ireland (Republican minority in part of the UK).
The abolition of border controls along all of those borders, the general free movement of people and traffic, investment and capital, single market rules and general harmonisation of standards as well as effective power sharing via the EU means that, for most people, the position of the border itself hardly matters anymore.
It looks as if that success is being repeated on the German/Polish border and across Central Europe. If, one day, something similar can be achieved through the Balkans, Europe can really be proud of its achievement with the EU.
Complain about this post
"The Euro debate doesn't pass the news test."
Not for the modern BBC of course (okay most media today). The explanation you're looking for:
1. It doesn't have dramatic pictures.
2. It's not about sex (money, yes).
3. It can't sit on the sofa next to a presenter and gossip.
4. The body count is low.
5. It's not easy for a presenter to cover whilst in walkabout mode.
However the EU constitution/treaty is a topic which unusually is both in the public interest and which the public is interested in.
It's a sad comment on the state of the media today that news is graded primarily by it's entertainment/shock value. Meanwhile current affairs is relegated to a position marginally below "rabbit adopts kittens", and I don't count Panorama as a serious programme.
The one defence that you might justifiably claim for the current coverage of politics is that it's almost impossible to find a national politician prepared to engage in a meaningful debate.
But does that mean that we deserve to drift into a bureaucratically driven European state with barely a murmur?
Rant over; I suppose the real question is "do we want to sink in a big boat or a small one?"
Complain about this post
Mark, thanks for quoting my comment, but I would like to clarify that a) I am not opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and b) my point was to state that grown up debate about the EU in this country doesn't even stand a chance when you have, on the one hand, the Eurosceptic side (e.g. Max Sceptic) arguing that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty equals the end of the road for this country as an independent and a sovereign nation (it doesn’t, but then the fact is that the British Parliament is the main depositary of this country’s sovereignty, and if they decide that it is right to ratify the treaty - in the same way that they regularly decide to send parcels of British sovereignty across the North Atlantic, e.g. the Irak war - then they are sovereign to do that, or am I missing something?) while on the other side, those supposedly on the pro-EU side remain largely silent and the ‘neutrals’ (e.g. the BBC) consider that ‘cookery lessons for children’ are a much more important political subject than whether this country ‘loses its sovereignty’ or not.
I was also pointing to the colossal irony/contradiction existing in the Eurosceptic position (Lisbon Treaty = UK loses its sovereignty) when a) the UK is not participating in any significant pillar of ‘European integration’ other than the Single Market (e.g. opt-outs from the euro, Schengen, Rights Charter, etc.) and b) large parts of the Lisbon Treaty, partly due to the above opt-outs and partly due to further opt-outs from specific areas of that treaty, don’t even apply to the UK anyway.
Perhaps this could be something that you, Mark, could throw some light upon.
Complain about this post
* 17.
* At 02:28 PM on 04 Feb 2008,
* Neil Basset wrote:
"Mark, I consider you to be fairly neutral on E.U. issues and have no complaints about your blog. Indeed I find them thought provoking and interesting.
I do have an issue with the BBC in general."
Yes -Mark Mardell wrote: "I worked in commercial radio for a long time. Never once did I hear of an advertiser trying to interfere with news coverage."
Personally, I find this even more worrying than if it wasn't true. If there is overt pressure then it can also be honestly and openly resisted -however, covert pressure is (by definition) more invisible, subtle, and difficult to resist (partly because -one level, it isn't even there and one can't fight against ghosts).
So apparently -it is not overt and obvious pressure we should worry about -but the more subtle ones: Why and how, for example, without being told to -do people (journalists in particular) ideologically support the organisations that employ them?
If we live in a post-Nuremberg democracy -then why is there so little open and honest public debate about such basic issues as the EU, the nature and effect of the global economy, the causes of terrorism, American hegemony, etc., etc...?
If one reads "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer then it becomes clear that repressive societies are only recognisable as being "repressive" by those outside the system. During the Nazi period, it seems very likely that an American and a German (if they could have an open chat) would conclude that each saw themselves as being "free" -and possibly the other as being "oppressed"......
So, to rephrase the question: How deos the state that Andy Stacey (#21) correctly describes come about in a non-coercive, free and democratic system? "It's a sad comment on the state of the media today that news is graded primarily by it's entertainment/shock value. Meanwhile current affairs is relegated to a position marginally below "rabbit adopts kittens", and I don't count Panorama as a serious programme."
Surely, one only needs to "own" an owl -when they have been nearly all been killed.... Presumably, this is why there is now a rush to "own" the world by commercial companies.
Complain about this post
I was one of those at the pro-referendum rally in October. I went direct from the rally to Heathrow to attend a family event and so was not in the UK to judge how it was reported but I do understand it was covered by the Telegraph and possibly by the Sun. A Sky News team were at the rally but I do not know if they broadcast anything. There was no BBC camera team there despite it giving prominent coverage on News 24 from early that morning of an anti-abortion ally that was to take place on the same spot directly after the pro-referendum rally. Listening to the ‘buzz’ in the crowd I would say that “BBC bias” was a main topic of conversation.
As a general rule I don’t consider it any more useful to accuse the BBC of bias than it is to waste readers’ time on here replying to insults thrown my way. But it is never-the-less my belief that the BBC does have a pro-EU bias in its reporting. I am not familiar with the methods it uses to determine neutrality on political stories but suspect it will give high priority to views of politicians themselves and assume that a “neutral” position can be reached by triangulating the positions of representatives of the major parties. If this is the case the BBC would reflect the interest of politicians as a class in supporting the EU (e.g. in creating lucrative alternative career paths in Brussels for those that profess faith in the project, in allowing them to produce legislation that cannot be over-turned by their successors should they lose an election, or be blocked by democratic checks (e.g. votes in 2nd chambers) on their power at national level, etc) even when its journalists, like the public, do not share these interests themselves. Thus the BBC may be lead by its methods to take a line on EU stories that looks neutral to politicians but is at odds with the general public. This however is just a theory of mine.
More certain is that the jobs that people do typically reflect their views. If you believe say that the environment is a big issue you are more likely to take a job as an environmentalist that someone who does not share that view. Anyone who works in the Brussels eco-system is therefore likely to be pre-disposed to a federalist viewpoint and this is as true of Brussels-based journalists as it is of politicians or civil servants.
To this it must be added that it is a fact that the EU does pay journalists to report stories about it. While I would not accuse the BBC of being involved this is clearly a practice which leads to conflicts of interest for those that do accept the money.
Complain about this post
What really worries me is the idea that a "neutralist" position involves triangulating existing major viewpoints.
Personally, I can't imagine a more absurd and dangerous form of bias -because it remains completely tautological.
On these grounds, I don't see how the BBC can have a "pro-European" bias. My experiences when in Europe/UK suggested that the two and half main parties had a ridiclous debate with each other (a little like the pointless discussions between Democrats and Republicans) while the BBC "remained neutral" and so nothing useful was ever said.
One upon a time there was a thing called "investigative journalism" where journalists didn't just go around triangulating nonsence -but actually went out looking for stories that gave some idea about how life might be outside the world of inbred political family madness.
Presumably, this is why Mark Mardell's blog is such a success and a controvercy -because he actually pokes his nose into the things going on around him and doesn't just transmit the current triangulated propaganda lunacy (remember those funny pre-Iraq war stories -telling us how good it was to invade Iraq and how silly it was to oppose it?).
Presumably, it is because Mark does not simply triangulate he makes people angry -and why some accuse him of not following the BBC line -which, in turn is why those who like a nice interesting story, and perhaps a bit of thinking on the side, actually enjoy his work (above other BBC blogs and stories).
Additionally, I can't understand why the BBC should be required to "present the British perspective" -whatever that might be. I guess i'm old and stupid -but I thought journalism was about looking for stories -not presenting "national perspectives" (isn't that called "propaganda" and what they do in totalitarian states?).
With the British tax payers paying (part of) the BBC's bill -wouldn't it be more cost effective if the British public was correctly informed over what was happening in the world -rather than having some mythical "perspective" projected on the world?
Unless of course, the BBC is only intended as entertainment for foreigners -who can then laugh themselves silly at British attitudes -while also enjoying the fun of watching them stumbling around in the dark making fools of themselves like their American friends.....
Complain about this post
RE: #7 by Mirek K.
"Not 'could'. Yet another lawsuit will be most certainly filed with the WTO Tribunal for continuing multiBillion illegal state subsidies financed by EU taxpayers. Just like they've been already paying through their noses for A-350 R&D and Galileo project."
And how is it any different from Boeing's illegal subsidies?
The entire US military-industrial complex is nothing but a bunch of subsidized private corporations, thriving off US DoD and other governmental orders, totaling in the trillion range.
Or do you think those 'aid packages' are anything other than subsidized orders for US companies?
Pleahhhhse... check your facts before you post anything - in other words stop spreading one-sided false FUD, please.
PS: what's wrong with this site? From here (US) it's EXTREMELY SLOW to preview/submit a post...
Complain about this post
@ Taraqa (11)
no, countries join because they want to get their hands on lots of money that others like my country Netherlands will have to fork over.
And politicians of those countries want to join because they eye those high paid non-incometaxed jobs in Brussels. The EU is an ever expanding massive gravy train for politicians.
I see here in the Netherlands an increasing division between those who hate parliamentary democracy (and thus love the EU) and those who love freedom (and thus oppose the EU). University types (usually self styled 'progressives'), mainstream politicians and high-up bureaucrats tend to support the EU. Everyone else tends increasingly to oppose it.
@ Julian (22)
the EU has nothing to do with defusing any of those sentiments. More propaganda from the democracy haters (ie EU-philes).
@JorgeG (24)
of course you don't oppose the Lisbon treaty. It is clear from your comments that you do not really like democracy and hold people like me in contempt. True?
EU-philes in general do increasingly show their contempt for parliamentary democracy and their desire to transfer all legislative powers to Brussels where that will be wielded outside the reach of the parliaments. And anyone who dares complain will be ridiculed by them.
Complain about this post
"Nokia has said it is "astonished" that a German state is seeking the repayment of 41m euros ($60m; £31m) of subsidies given to a factory now due to close.
North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) wants the Finnish mobile phone maker to give back the money after Nokia announced it was relocating the facility to Romania.
Nokia said it had invested more than 350m euros in the plant since 1999, "well above" its agreement with NRW." [BBC]
I don't understand German authorities' problem; after all those were LEGAL subsidies, right?
But I do understand why so many German companies transfer their production not only to Romania, but also to Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Poland, Slovakia, and even...US.
P.S. Just 24 hrs ago a European Union import duty on bananas has again been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization.
The WTO backed the US in its challenge to a higher EU tariff of 176 euros ($254.9; £131) a metric tonne on bananas from Latin America.
But I'm sure that WTO has done it only because of heavy pressure from American banano-military-industrial complex, to use Noam Chimpsky's terminology.
Complain about this post
Mark,
Forgive the naievity but I always thought that broadcasters should abide by the rules when doing their peices to camera or microphone but that blogs where the place where they are free to express themselves.
Given that, I personally think your blog is remarkably free from prejudice but, even if others disagree, it is your space. Why on earth journalists should not be entitled to private views and the freedom to express them is beyond me.
Tell it you see it Mark. If I differ, I promise you will be the first to know.
Paul.
Complain about this post
@ Marcel #29
'of course you don't oppose the Lisbon treaty. It is clear from your comments that you do not really like democracy and hold people like me in contempt. True?
EU-philes in general do increasingly show their contempt for parliamentary democracy'
Do you really understand what you are writing and what you are talking about, because it doesn't look like you do? If you read my previous post throughout, not just pick what you like, you will then notice that what I said was: 'the fact is that the British Parliament is the main depositary of this country’s sovereignty, and if they decide that it is right to ratify the treaty (...) then they are sovereign to do that'. I will add that if they decide that this treaty is not the same as the defunct constitution on which they promised a popular vote, then they are also sovereign enough to decide that.
IS THIS SHOWING CONTEMPT FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY?
I think it is you who are showing contempt for grown up debate, because I just cannot see what can be more respectful of parliamentary democracy than what I just said above.
Besides, a small point of democratic interest: Do you realise that 18 out of 27 EU countries RATIFIED the EU Constitution, either through referenda (2 of them) or through parliament (i.e. parliamentary democracy). Due to the fact that certain countries (particularly the UK) do not agree with qualified majority voting on key EU policies, then the minority of countries rejecting the constitution (only 2 actually voted against it, the rest declined to pursue ratification after the no votes in France and the Netherlands) overruled the will of the majority.
There would only be real democracy in the EU if key treaties or policies such as the Lisbon Treaty were put to a European-wide popular vote to be held on the same day in all 27 EU countries with a qualified majority (e.g. 60% of countries and citizens) being necessary to approve the relevant treaty or policy. As this is opposed by certain countries, namely the UK (not sure about your own country) then there is not much chance of making progress, as any key decision can be vetoed by a single country.
Complain about this post
JorgeG: There is nothing democratic about the policy wishes expressed by a majority of one nation’s voters being over-ruled by people from other countries. Your ‘real democracy’ at EU-level would depend upon their being a European nation. This clearly does not exist and will not exist within the lifetime of anyone reading this.
Mark Mardell’s journalistic integrity may be impervious to offers of EU ‘owls’ but can he say the same for every journalist in Brussels? The EU openly defends its long-standing practice of providing journalists with free airline tickets to Strasbourg and daily stipends of €100 despite the obvious danger for the independence of the press. The following article from the International Herald Tribune indicates that the practice of state subsidises for journalists is pretty widespread on the Continent extending well beyond the Brussels institutions. Is this political culture of patronage not one likely reason for the EU-friendly coverage seen in so many Continental newspapers as compared to the plain-speaking British press?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/news/eu.php
Complain about this post