The Left is mobilising against the next EU Treaty ... but the BBC won't admit it

by Marc Glendening

In Britain any media story about disquiet and resistance to a new transfer of powers to the EU inevitably focuses obsessively on the Tory Eurosceptics.

The BBC, of course, always attempts to explain away opposition to a prospective Brussels power grab as being almost exclusively a 'right-wing' phenomenon.

This is in part a consequence of journalistic laziness, in part a cyncial campaign to try and culturally marginalise those who question EU power.

For many years the Democracy Movement has drawn attention to the nasty McCarthyite flavour of the campaign many on the New Labour left, people such as Denis MacShane and Peter Hain, have run against their opponents on the European issue.

The propaganda fantasy offensive being waged the Euro-McCarthyites will soon be hard to maintain. The real story now emerging is how many on the left across Europe are mobilising against the latest move being driven by Merkel and Sarkozy to give Brussels control over the Greek and other Eurozone economies.

As Ian Traynor of The Guardian commented on January 26 in his front page story: "The treaty would enshrine the German model of fiscal and monetarist rigour as binding on the eurozone, in a move that would, in effect, outlaw Keynesian economics."

Late last year, writing in the New Statesman magazine, the influential left-wing commentator Owen Jones, author of the excellent Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class, wrote similarly: "Left-wing governments of all hues will, in effect, be banned by this treaty. If the French or the German left returns to power in the near future....it will be illegal for them to respond to the global economic catastrophe with anything but austerity. An economic stimulus is forbidden - because the treaty has burried Keynesianism."

It is not only in Britain that the left is waking up to the fact that the top-down EU one-size-fits-all power system means the death of democracy in the member countries.

Francois Hollande, the French socialist candidate for president who is the clear favourite in his race against Sarkozy, has promised to re-negotiate the treaty as it makes it impossible for him to deliver on his promises as things stand.

This is why democrats across Europe, regardless of their broader political differences, should hope that the Gallic left do indeeed triumph over the EU-fanatical centre-right.

If Hollande does indeed become president and does deliver on his promise to challenge the undemocratic nature of the treaty, it will be interesting to see if the BBC harp on about the French being 'marginalised' as a consequence and the whole ensuing row being the product of 'right-wing' Little Gallicism.

--------------------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

BBC bias in Lisbon treaty reporting

UPDATE: Tues 20 October 2009

The BBC are at it again with their subtle bias: "His signature is now virtually the last hurdle before full ratification of the treaty, which is aimed at streamlining the 27-member EU's decision making." A completely one-sided presentation of the treaty's purpose, given in the BBC's supposedly non-partisan voice, and therefore not fairly balanced by the critical quote from the clearly partisan Czech President that follows it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

A flurry of BBC reports surrounding the recent referendum in Ireland has once again displayed the continued pro-EU bias in the BBC's supposedly 'neutral' and 'impartial' output.

BBC stories about the referendum result, discussing what the Conservatives now intend to do about the Lisbon Treaty and on questions about Czech ratification were all peppered with the subtly biased descriptive statements about the Treaty that have featured in many other BBC articles on the subject in recent years.

The BBC kicks off its latest festival of euro bias just a few paragraphs into the piece reporting the result of the Irish vote, by declaring: "The treaty - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the 27-nation bloc - ... "

This is of course an abjectly pro-EU 'government line' description of the purpose of the treaty, with which the treaty's critics would profoundly disagree.

We, for example, would argue that the treaty's only purpose is to continue the EU political integration project, by transferring more decision-making powers from national governments and parliaments to undemocratic EU institutions. And to establish for the EU further symbols of the statehood to which it so clearly aspires.

Yet there, presented as the view of the 'neutral' BBC, the unalloyed government view sits. Completely unqualified and unattributed, supposedly a statement of impartial fact.

Credibility clash

Nearer the bottom of the same article appears a second, similarly biased statement of BBC 'fact'.

"The treaty is intended to make EU institutions better suited to the enlarged bloc of 27", the article intones. Another 'government line'.

At least, after this second biased claim, albeit right down at the bottom of the piece, the views of "opponents" are finally given a short airing.

But still that is unsatisfactory, as such opponents are being set against not the opinions of the EU, the government or some campaign group whose broad stance can be determined and their view put in context. But the view of the supposedly neutral BBC.

That credibility clash is a totally unfair one on the treaty's critics.

More bias

The same problem crops up in the BBC article questioning the Tory position on the treaty after the Irish vote.

Again, only a few paragraphs down, it is written that the treaty "aims to strengthen EU decision-making processes by using a majority vote, not unanimity, for more decisions."

Yet another completely pro-EU interpretation of the treaty's aims, unattributed to any known EU-friendly voices, and unaccompanied by any balanced mention of the consequent weakening of national democratic structures that more EU majority voting entails.

No mention, for example, of how majority voting allows entire governments and parliaments to be overridden by EU institutions and laws imposed on countries regardless of domestic popular or even political opinion.

Are we really expected to imagine that the BBC considers such trifling details of little relevance or interest to readers? Because if not, what other conclusion is there to draw but that of unthinking or deliberate bias?

No critical voices about the treaty are featured in this article at all. But two quotes - from Gordon Brown and Irish PM Brian Cowen - are included in effusive praise of the treaty.

Third time unlucky

And finally, in an article about the Czech ratification of the treaty, the BBC states without qualification as if it were indisputable fact: "The treaty aims to streamline EU decision-making and boost the EU's role globally."

"Opponents" do get a look-in this time, using the same non-specific line as previously that: "Opponents see Lisbon as part of a federalist agenda that threatens national sovereignty."

No detail there about specific negative treaty provisions that might actually make people question the treaty's merits. Heaven forbid!

Guilty verdict

Back in 2005, in a report the BBC itself commissioned, the Corporation was deemed guilty of an institutional pro-EU bias.

Probably worse than any deliberate bias, of which the BBC was cleared, the report concluded that the problem was institutional because the broadcaster “suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentionial bias”.

It put this down to BBC journalists often being ignorant about how the EU works.

But a far greater contributor to the problem seems to be the internal perpetuation of an inaccurate cultural view of the EU's critics - a view that is too heavily defined by crude labels used by the government and other EU supporters to try to discredit their opponents.

The most commonly broadcast manifestation of this cultural fault is frequent use of the term "anti-Europeans" to describe EU-critics, with all the cultural antipathy to 'Europe' that term misleadingly injects into what is in reality a political debate about governing structures.

Sadly, on recent form, it seems very little progress has been made in the intervening years to restore the BBC's reputation for impartiality.

BBC in smear against Irish treaty critics

On Tuesday 15 April, the BBC reported that an "anti-EU gang" had assaulted the prominent Irish MEP Proinsias de Rossa after a debate in Dublin on the Lisbon Treaty.

The article - written, as so often, by an un-named BBC correspondent and apparently taking a spokesman for a leading pro-treaty party as its only source - said that Mr de Rossa had been "confronted" by a group of men who had "screamed abuse at him" before "knocking him over and pinning him down".

Now this all sounds very serious, and not at all the appropriate way to conduct political debate within a democracy.

Or it would have been, if the BBC report was remotely accurate.

Because it has emerged that the hapless MEP in question in fact tripped and fell on his face while running away from a calm on-camera attempt to ask him a question.

Footage exposes story as fake

The entire incident was caught on camera, showing that the description provided by the leader of the Irish Labour Party, and reported unquestioningly by the BBC, is a complete fabrication and blatant attempt to smear treaty-critics ahead of the looming public vote.

The footage clearly shows de Rossa being approached slowly by the cameraman and an activists with the anti-treaty group We Are Change Ireland, who asks, “Why did you do it?” - a reference to the MEP's recent vote in the European Parliament against respecting the outcome of the Irish referendum.

The two begin walking down the street and de Rossa is the first to physically put his hand on the activist as he moves him out of the way to cross the street.

But then it seems it's De Rossa himself who snaps, first lunging at another nearby cameraman and then proceeding to chase him down the street, before quite independently tripping and falling to the ground.

Questions for the BBC

Knowing the sensitivity of the current EU debate in Ireland, with an important vote looming, did the BBC not obtain the confirmation of any other independent sources confirming the pro-treaty camp's "assault" version of events?

Where are the people who "screamed abuse" before he fell down? And who exactly did the "knocking him over"? None of that is evident from the footage.

It seems the Police confirmed there was an incident, but did they confirm it was "assault"? As the BBC's own article towards the end admits, "Police took statements from witnesses but made no arrests". The activists involved claim they themselves flagged down a passing Police van.

Inaccuracy and bias

Beyond problems of inaccuracy in the BBC's article, it also provides a clear example of subtle continued bias that EU-critics have long complained about.

In a passing reference to the Lisbon Treaty, the article says that it has the aim "of making EU institutions more efficient, now that the bloc has 27 member states".

This is not an unequivocal fact, as the BBC seems to accept (given no opposing voice is offered), but a highly controversial assertion made by the treaty's supporters.

Critics claim that the treaty has nothing to do with 'efficiency' but in fact has only the aim of continuing the process of centralising ever-more decision-making in a growing Brussels 'state',

We would point out that both previous EU treaties - Amsterdam and Nice - were also claimed to be necessary for an enlarged EU, and ask how many times exactly are we expected to fall for this supposed justification for passing more power to the EU?

Doubts re-awakened

The BBC's reporting of this incident re-awakens serious questions - following the 2005 Wilson report into BBC bias and the more recent revelation that the Corporation has taken out £141 million in 'soft loans' from the EU - as to the BBC's journalistic authority and integrity when reporting EU issues.

Having today registered a complaint with the BBC and provided them with this information, we'll be watching the article to see if, in the interests of fairness and impartiality, it is removed and a correction is published at least as prominently as the original article was.

If this doesn't happen, it will surely be confirmed either that the BBC ignores complaints or, worse, that the Corporation has sought to help one side of a controversial political debate perpetrate a blatant smear on the other in the context of a hotly contested public debate and vote.

Either way, not exactly the behaviour expected from an allegedly 'impartial' organisation.