web analytics

NATIONAL INTERESTS WILL ALWAYS WIN OUT

By Pete Moore On September 10th, 2020

Allow me to explain.

The United Kingdom left the EU on 31st January this year. The Withdrawal Agreement sets out the terms of our leaving and allows for a transition period, until 31st December this year. The Northern Ireland Protocol is a part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Under the protocol, Northern Ireland will continue to enforce the EU’s customs rules and follow its rules on product standards. It comes into effect on 1st January 2021. (It is also unconstitutional because it breeches the Act of Union, but we’ll let that pass.)

The Withdrawal Agreement is accompanied by a duty to conclude and implement a UK/EU trade deal by the end of 2020. Since then, and despite numerous previous promises to do so, the EU has absolutely refused to agree any kind of trade deal. It has failed to do so because it  refuses to accept the that UK is a sovereign, independent and self-governing nation once again.

Far from seeking to reach a trade deal, the EU threatened to impose tariffs and barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. No responsible government could possibly leave an economic annexation of a part of the UK unaddressed. It is akin to NAFTA imposing tariffs and barriers to trade between the American states. It is intolerable and would not be allowed.

The government has done what it must, which is to allow for the offending parts of the Withdrawal Agreement to be set aside if the EU goes ahead with its threat. The UK government has actually tried to negotiate a trade deal in good faith, as a sovereign nation which wants a deal but which will not be pushed around. The EU’s response has been to wildly thrash around because it cannot bully the other party.

If Parliament votes to amend the law it will be acting properly and constitutionally.

As for Nancy Pelosi, if she wants to campaign on a platform of voting down a deal which would be good for the American economy and American jobs then that’s her batty call.

69 Responses to “NATIONAL INTERESTS WILL ALWAYS WIN OUT”

  1. No amount of soft soaping can hide the fact that these clauses render a promise ratified and agreed by this govt. in agreement between the U.K. and the EU as a lie. It’s nothing to do with the actual policies Or even about Brexit, it’s about Trust in the word of a sovereign state when signing international agreements and treaties, and this severely undermines the UKs previously highly regarded status as a partner whose word was honoured.

    If the U.K. govt didn’t want the possibility of tariffs and restrictions between GB and N.I. They shouldn’t have had them as a fail safe mechanism in the withdrawal agreement. It’s deceptive and underhand to agree to them in a signed binding agreement and then a few Months later say we are unilaterally abandoning that part.

  2. voting down a deal which would be good for the American economy and American jobs then that’s her batty call.

    The UK is a close friend and ally, and we should do a really good trade deal with them, for a thousand good reasons.

    And a good deal is one that won’t tamper with the hard-won GFA.

    The GFA is in the British national interest.

  3. Since then, and despite numerous previous promises to do so, the EU has absolutely refused to agree any kind of trade deal.

    Because negotiations are ongoing.

    Far from seeking to reach a trade deal, the EU threatened to impose tariffs and barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

    That’s simply not true.

    It is akin to NAFTA imposing tariffs and barriers to trade between the American states

    It’s not. The UK isn’t a nation.

    The EU’s response has been to wildly thrash around because it cannot bully the other party.

    Another untruth.

    If Parliament votes to amend the law it will be acting properly and constitutionally

    Yes it will. It will also break an International Agreement.

    As for Nancy Pelosi, if she wants to campaign on a platform of voting down a deal which would be good for the American economy and American jobs then that’s her batty call

    Yes, we’ve seen your trade deal predictions before:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=64059

    Why don’t the UK simply ‘move to another circle’ and the problem would be solved?

    This severely undermines the UKs previously highly regarded status as a partner whose word was honoured

    A former Conservative PM seems to think so, Colm:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54003483

  4. “Far from seeking to reach a trade deal, the EU threatened to impose tariffs and barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.”

    Hang on, this was in the protocol from the beginning…specifically for goods at risk of diversion to the EU (and which can be refunded where they remain in NI). This is what Boris signed up to. You seem to be suggesting this is some sort of sinister EU plot that the UK were unaware of?

  5. A former Conservative PM fully paid up & for EU shill seems to think so….

    There FIFY

    ————–
    It’s astonishing that so many Remain Tories, subdued and silent until now, but ably supported by the MSM are suddenly finding their Remain voice again, as if they’ve woken up out of their Covid slumber. They are given ample space in the MSM to tell us all how awful, how dangerous, this proposed Bill is – Mrs May, unsurprisingly, well to the fore – They would do well to get their heads round Clive Thorne’s (*) arguments.

    Mr Thorne makes some points which are of extreme importance in the arguments about International Law being breached, as stated by Brussels and our Remainiacs:

    “The government has rightly indicated that the protocol purports to achieve the irreconcilable: protecting the EU Single Market and the trading integrity of the Irish Republic whilst also giving Northern Ireland unfettered access to markets in Great Britain. In any event, the EU is not a state and the court has no jurisdiction in disputes between it and a non-member nation state.

    The arrangement was concluded with strong pressure by the Irish Republic, which arguably failed to recognize that there is a fundamental distinction between its position as an EU member state which has subsumed its trading rights within the EU and the United Kingdom which is now, in the words of Lord Frost, “a sovereign state, free to set its own laws. Trading laws and policy largely fall outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, so there is no obligation to treat the Irish Republic other than as an EU member state.”

    This is a first indication that the arguments about the Good Friday Agreement and by implication about a ‘breach of International Law’ are so much dust thrown up by the vested interests of Remain here and the EU over there. There’s more:

    “Against that background, the British Government has indicated its intention to amend the Withdrawal Agreement to address the state aid issue so that EU rules only apply in Northern Ireland, to reform the requirement that Northern Irish businesses must complete export declarations when they send goods to Great Britain and to reform the procedure for exporting goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is also introducing an Internal Market Bill to ensure goods from Northern Ireland continue to have unfettered access to the UK.”

    Mr Thorne then addresses that outcry about the legality of the Bill, by referring to Parliamentary Sovereignty and by presenting precedents, according to lawyerly customs:

    “The question therefore is whether the proposed action is lawful. The position under domestic law is plain, and stems from the long-established doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which has frequently been summarized that Parliament can make laws covering anything, that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament and in practice most importantly that a valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court.
    Exceptions to this doctrine included the European Communities Act 1972, which provided for the supremacy of EU law. That legislation was however repealed by section 1 of the 2018 Act. Other exceptions include the Human Rights legislation though it is hard to see the relevance of that in relation to trade practice and policy.

    The highest courts in the United Kingdom and in Commonwealth countries including New Zealand have approved the above concepts of parliamentary sovereignty. Jurists of the highest calibre including Lord Bingham and Lord Reid have approved the doctrine in their judgments. A prime example is Lord Reid giving the advice of the majority in the Privy Council in 1967 in the well-known Rhodesian independence case of Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke.”

    Having written that, he comes to the main, the important point, referring to ‘Section 38 of the 2020 Act’ – this was inserted by Sir Bill Cash who knew very well what he was doing. Sir John Redwood wrote in his Diary a few days ago that it was the insertion of that section which allowed him to vote for the WA:

    “However, the position of the government in this case is strengthened by section 38 of the 2020 Act which expressly asserts the sovereignty of Parliament. This section specifically enables Parliament to introduce legislation to amend the Withdrawal Agreement.

    It is therefore highly unlikely that another attempt, for example by Gina Miller in the Supreme Court, to prevent a change in the Withdrawal Agreement would succeed. The government should nevertheless be prepared for such an attempt.” Indeed so – but that and other litigation might in the end turn out to be futile, writes Mr Thorne:

    “There remains the possibility of litigation in the International Court of Justice in the Hague to enforce the Withdrawal Agreement in its original form as an international treaty under the Vienna Convention, but is that really likely? The result after a number of years might be a declaration against the United Kingdom but in practice that would have limited effect and events inevitably will have moved on.”

    Clive Thorne concludes thusly: “Ultimately, this is a matter of politics with a Prime Minister backed by an 80 seat majority and with a general election over 4 years away will be able to pass the required legislation despite the strictures of his predecessor. He will no doubt have in mind the words of a former member of Parliament for South Down, a Northern Irish constituency, who memorably stated that “whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts.”

    Johnson, who is still regarding himself as some sort of Churchill successor, would also do well to remember the words of another PM from the 19th century who knew a thing or two about fear. It’s the First Duke of Wellington, who said:

    ‘The people of England must be governed by persons who are not afraid.’

    (*) Vice President of ‘Lawyers for Britain’,

  6. Notwithstanding parliamentary sovereignty, is it not the case that, where possible, national law should be read in the light of international legal obligations signed up to by said nation?

  7. Of course it should Reg.

    The lengthy, speculative legalese above is essentially an elongated version of Pete’s ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ principle, which is perfectly correct. Also like Pete’s comments it focuses on the constitutionality of the ammendment within the domestic national system while completely ignoring the Brit Government’s obligations to honour international agreements and law.

  8. The UK will remain in the European Economic Area, just as Pete Moore predicted.

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=63675

  9. “Far from seeking to reach a trade deal, the EU threatened to impose tariffs and barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.”

    It hasn’t threatened to impose it. That is what will occur, under the deal negotiated by Boris and his cabal. This is Boris decided a year after signing a deal with the EU that he doesn’t like the terms.

    Now, from a purely legal point of view (certainly in domestic law), they can do this. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament cannot act unlawfully, domestically speaking anyway. And ultimately international law has broadly no force and effect. So when it comes to the UK, Parliament cannot break the only law that matters.

    But there will be consequences.

    It has already turned the UK into a punch line. The Foreign Secretary was meeting with the Germans and the French about Iran and they put out a statement saying Iran needed to comply with with its nuclear commitments. Iran should really respond that they are sovereign nation and are only going to break their commitments in a limited and very specific manner.

    It also means who will trust them in a negotiation again? Why sit across from the Brits and negotiate a mutually beneficial treaty only for them to turn around after the fact and decide to not implement their side of it?

    Personally I’m of the opinion that sanctions should follow. Travel bans for senior British government ministers, freeze their European accounts, sieze European assets etc… If you act like a criminal you get treated like one.

    “If Parliament votes to amend the law it will be acting properly and constitutionally.”

    And I’m sure we will hear no complaining from you if the Lords (who are part of said Parliament) choose to block it.

  10. The US and UK have leaders who don’t know what they’re doing.

  11. What I don’t understand is that both the US & EU hasovertly stated that this will have consequences on any future trade deals. Do the British government think that future trading partners won’t take a similar position regarding Britain’s flagrant breach of it’s previously internationally agreed obligations?

    Do they not belive this, do they not know or do they not care?

  12. Part of me still is wondering what they are aiming at. Is this their actual position (crazy and self-mutilating as it is)? Is it a negotiating tactic (and once a deal gets agreed then this comes off the table)? Are they expecting the Lords to block it (so that they can say they fought the good fight but the Remoaner Elite prevented them from going through with it)?

  13. Or did they not actually read the NI Protocol until the other day?

  14. Does anyone think that Boris knows what he is doing?

    Is he not a big picture guy, never a sweat the details guy, a ” Make the UK Great Again ” bluffer?

  15. I don’t think Boris knows what he’s doing. But then I also don’t think Boris is calling the shots.

    “Or did they not actually read the NI Protocol until the other day?”

    That’s where the trully insidious bit of this comes from (and really throws Pete’s – the EU caused this – bollocks into perspective). In February Boris Johnson carried out a cabinet reshuffle.

    At the time the rumour was (in February – not retrospectively) that Boris was looking for ways around the Withdrawal Agreement. He was told by (favourite of the Brexiteers) Attorney General Geoffrey Cox that doing so would be against international law and that as Attorney General he couldn’t sanction it. So Cox was unceremoniously sacked, and in his place Boris appointed Suella Braverman who will do as she is told (and has done what she was told this week).

  16. Phantom –

    You appear to be looking at this through the lens of an EU wallah or an anti-British bigot.

    As I said, the intention is to keep goods moving freely in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is to free a constituent part of the United Kingdom from EU threats. Seen through the lens of a unionist and a patriot it is a necessary move.

    Again, it is as if NAFTA held out the threat of tariffs and trade barriers between American states. You would regard that as intolerable. A president worthy of the title would remove NAFTA’s right and ability to do it. You would demand that.

    Not for the first time in this Brexit business, please see that we want only what you take for granted.

  17. “A president worthy of the title would remove NAFTA’s right and ability to do it.”

    Why did Boris negotiate it into the Agreement in the first place then?

  18. I claim no expertise in this matter and have no dog in this fight.

    But is the UK now not abrogating agreements that they entered into quite recently?

  19. Exactly, Seamus. Why is this suddenly an issue now?

  20. Pete Moore believes it is in the UKs best interest to use deception and fraud when making written promises and to demonstrate complete lack of trust and good faith when signing agreements. It’s a strange way of actually being a proper patriot, which Pete is not. His ‘patriotism’ is more of the scoundrel kind, the lowest and least beneficial, designed more to enjoy the jingoistic satisfaction of promoting hostility to a supposed ‘enemy’ rather than anything else.

  21. I so hope that Johnson goes ahead with this, because it leads to the no-deal Brexit that this Cummings Vote Leave government has always lusted after and it will be a total disaster, equivalent to 1992 when the Tories lost their reputation for economic competence just after winnning a fourth election. And that cost them very dearly in 1997 and will almost certainly cost them just as dearly in 2004, maybe even more so. Here’s hoping.

    I’m still pro-Brexit but unlike Pete Moore I’m appalled at the antics of this rag-bag Rule Britannia flag-waving gang. They are threatening the integrity of the UK, and that’s because the Tory party is now the English National party and they are still shit-scared of Farage creating an England Forever Spitfire party. Which it appears is very much on the cards, and if it’s not Farage it could be someone even more right-wing-English-Nationalist.

    I know, who could that possibly be? Maybe Prince Andrew? Or Jacob Rees-Mogg? Either way, the union is in great peril and as a unionist that scares me. I don’t want to live out my declining years in political turbulence, and having lived all of my life in Belfast through “The Troubles” I think I deserve a bit of peace and quiet. So if there is even a whiff of political violence I will be off from this island for good.

  22. Former Top Conservative ministers Michael Howard and Nigel Lawson , both firm Brexit supporters have also opposed this because they realise it is nothing to do with being a Brexiteer or a remainer or even whether you support the agreement or not but it’s about honouring what you have signed . In terms Pete Moore would otherwise claim to live by, it’s about being a proper ‘Gentleman’.
    It would be good if enough Conservative MPs realise that and refuse to allow this to pass but I doubt the numbers will be there. Perhaps the best that can be relied upon is that the usually supportive Brexit newspapers will refuse to go along with this trashing of Britain’s reputation.

  23. Peter, whilst coming from the same city but being on different spectrums of the constitutional position of the wee six your comment above is absolutley correct. The current Conservative Party are totally Englandcentric, probably as a result of the Nige snapping at their heels with his own brand of jingoism, (BTW, IMO this is very welcome). I think someone who lives on the island of Ireland and particularly in the North see the Brexit negotiations with a clarity that the English can’t.

    The EU & US have said there will be consequences if this goes ahead, senior civil servants & government lawyers have resigned over it, former very senior pro Brexit Conservative ministers & a Conservative former PM have warned against the international repercussions of this duplicity and it’s very unlikely to get through the HoL.

    Just what is the game here?

  24. I have recently started to watch Sky TV, via Roku

    I like it very much. It seems to be the same feed that you would get if you were watching in Britain, rather than the “ international “ BBC World programs. I recommend it to all the Americans here who are interested in British / European / world affairs. Fox/CNN/MSNBC are absolutely not covering stories like this in any real way.

    Sky had some extended discussion of this issue yesterday, including comments from a journalist in Scotland

    He said that the Scots are following this closely, and that many there are really unhappy with what BJ is doing, that it is leading to more support for the SNP.

    Is this correct? Pity we don’t have a sober Scots voice here to comment

  25. I have always liked SKY News. Its always appeared more dynamic refreshing and certainly better at covering breaking stories than the BBC , while alos having no ‘in your face’ political agenda or bias the way that you see obvioulsy with FOX and CNN in the US.

    There is evidence that the Scots are leaning ore towards independence but I think in recent months that is fueled more by comparing the sober professional and consistent mature approach of Nicola Sturgeons administration, particularly over COVID than the often shambolic bitty approach of Johnson’s national government.

    If the Johnson administration continue to pursue this cynical attempt to reheat the very ‘little Englander’ Brussels is the enemy mantra as they are doing with this bill it will drive the Scots even further towards an independence desire.

  26. Sky used to be controlled by Rupert Murdoch, but he never let it become a partisan megaphone like he did with Fox News and the NY Post

    He has sold his stake in Sky

    The UK has at least two good all news channels in BBC and Sky

    The US doesn’t even have one ( other than the financial ones like Bloomberg and CNBC )

  27. The operation of devolution operates very similar to the operation of federalism in the United States. There are a specific list of powers that are granted to the UK government. Everything else is devolved. If a matter is not excepted or reserved then it is devolved.

    Simply put a devolved Scotland has never existed outside the European Union. Under devolution economic power is devolved, but everyone must follow the broad rules set by the EU. The current interpretation of the devolution settlement is that when economic powers come back from Brussells they won’t go (in the case of Scotland) to Westminster but to Holyrood. The result was that there is a major risk of Scotland doing its own thing, Wales doing its own thing, England doing their own thing etc… increasing the chances of major economic borders within the UK. Avoiding that is probably in the economic interests of everyone in Britain, including Scotland.

    However Johnson’s plan for doing it is to not reach agreement with the Scots or the Welsh, but to effectively return those powers to Westminster. The problem with that is that the British government is de facto the English government. So if agreement on Scotland’s economic future can’t be reached then the result will be decided by the English government, not the Scottish government.

  28. “The UK has at least two good all news channels in BBC and Sky”

    The UK broadcasting regulations require impartial, unbiased coverage, even from private broadcasters. So Fox News, and even channels such as CNN and MSNBC, would struggle with regulators if they were UK channels.

  29. The UK has at least two good all news channels in BBC and Sky

    Though not a news channel Channel 4 News deserves an honourable mention too.

  30. I think that channels, especially cable channels, should be allowed to be as partisan as they choose to be. The government, and ” voluntary ” watchdogs should have minimal role in programming.

    If Farage wants to start a Brexit news channel and only speak about how great Brexit is all day, how does that harm anyone? Whose business is it other than him and his viewers?

    The old US ” fairness doctrine “, which is no longer in effect, effectively kept conservative voices off the air of the networks. There was no Hannity or Carlson, and there was no possibility of them getting any air time if they did exist.

    I only wish that Fox / CNN / MSNBC reported the news a little more. I think that there would be a big opportunity for a truly fair and balanced news channel here, one that reports domestic and international news. Which the existing channels absolutely do not do.

    Fairness doctrines may have made sense in the days of limited bandwidth and over the air only broadcasting over a limited number of channels. You can now have an unlimited number of channels over the internet. Everyone here can start their own TV channel if they feel like it.

    Al Jazeera news channel can be very good also, especially on the Arab world and Africa. I don’t see it on my cable system, but I see it on Roku.

  31. I think that channels, especially cable channels, should be allowed to be as partisan as they choose to be

    Don’t they then become propaganda as opposed to news channels?

    I only wish that Fox / CNN / MSNBC reported the news a little more. I think that there would be a big opportunity for a truly fair and balanced news channel here, one that reports domestic and international news. Which the existing channels absolutely do not do

    Is that not contradictory to what you wish for above?

    Al Jazeera can be superb.

  32. Fox News is a propaganda channel that calls itself a news channel. I don’t think that anyone has the right to stop them from doing that. It’s their business.

    I wish for something that I don’t now have, but I don’t want to regulate Fox or CNN to force them to do it my way.

    On all things, I am in favor of the minimum amount of effective regulation and compulsion.

    I used to think that Al Jazeera was a propaganda channel. I don’t think that anymore. They do better shoe leather journalism across the world than the big US channels. By a mile.

  33. Again, some here would remember the days when there were only three TV stations or so, and when those stations would go off the air at midnight or whatever. This was not that long ago.

    Now, there is no shortage of channels. There are too many of them, if anything. I can’t keep up with them.

    The need for regulation should be less now than it was in 1960. There no longer is a scarce resource of public airwave channels for TV or radio. There is abundance.

  34. The point I make is that if you advertise yourself as a news channel then IMO that’s what you should be and regulations put in place to ensure that IMO isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you want to be Conservative / Liberal TV then by all means do but just be sure that people are going to know they’ll get exactly what it says on the tin as opposed to non partisan news.

  35. Little Britons in the UK are taking their cue from Johnson:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54114078

  36. I don’t want the government telling the press what to do on anything, apart from prevention of fraud or incitement, etc.

    There are many who think that Fox News is a news channel. PVR is one of them. Maybe it is. It’s not for me or for any government to say.

  37. I don’t consider propaganda to be ‘press’ and I don’t think any serious journalist worth their salt would either. It’s not a matter of press freedom, it’s a matter of trade description.

  38. It is the press

    This is the press

    https://anphoblacht.com/

    Subject to very few exceptions, the government has no role in regulating the media.

    Fox News and CNN are not defrauding anyone. Who are their victims?

    We don’t need to regulate very grain of sand on the beach.

  39. //I wish for something that I don’t now have, //

    Does anyone know any objective online news source in the US where you can get a fair view of what’s going on in that political madhouse? When I find some article or report, I always click on the Home button and soon see that almost all their stuff has a certain slant one way or the other. It’s always either “Trump is going to do terribly” or “Biden is going to do terribly” etc.
    Of course it doesn’t have to excuse any of the idiocy of the Trump adm., but at least report the current news objectively. I’d prefer something critical of both sides.

    One place maybe is Politico.com, but they don’t really report so much on day-to-day matters.
    https://www.politico.com/

  40. Noel

    In NYC, the local channels report the news straight.

    I believe that the nightly national news reporting on the networks is straight.

    My best TV news channels for US reporting are not based in the US. The all news cable channels are all no good.

    I’d think that the NY Times has gone full woke and becomes less valuable every day.

    The Wall Street Journal is a bit right of center but is probably the best of a bad lot for print.

  41. This is the press

    AP is a for sale newspaper which is completely party political and everyone knows it as such. It’s a world away from propaganda channels on television posing as news outlets.

    There is no ‘defrauding’ nor ‘victims’ with CNN nor Fox and I don’t believe anyone has said there is. As I said, it’s a trade description as opposed to a freedom of the press issue and regulations to ensure people know the difference isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    A bit of advice, I’m having a civil conversation here and you should moderate the tone of the comments above lest you get some of it back.

  42. I have no idea what you’re saying

    What’s the purpose of the threat.

    I’m not yelling at you at all.

  43. The sneering reference to ‘fraud’ & ‘victims’ that has nothing to do with this conversation.

    The Wall Street Journal is a bit right of center but is probably the best of a bad lot for print

    Yes. I don’t mind the press having an opinion as long as you know what you’re getting.

  44. there are no good single news sources.

  45. It’s not sneering

    Don’t be such a delicate orchid

    If there is no fraud, if there have been no victims, if there has been no deception of any kind, there is no valid reason for the government to get involved.

    You regulate with the lightest possible effective hand, not the heaviest.

    The ” problem ” of Fox News and the others has not been caused by bad regulation here.

    I loathe them, but have no right to change them at all.

  46. PVR

    I generally agree

    But invite you to take a look at Sky News

  47. Fraud and deception are different beasts.

    You regulate with the lightest possible effective hand, not the heaviest

    Having regulations in place to make sure people know what they’re getting isn’t regulating with a heavy hand.

    But invite you to take a look at Sky News

    We agree on this.

  48. Everyone knows what they are getting with Fox News

    PVR, David and Pete here probably think that Fox News are more fair than the BBC is

    It is not our place to to regulate or change anything about the programming that they prefer

    How can any regulator of speech or news be thought to be unbiased, especially in this woke on the one side and anti intellectual age on the other side age

  49. PVR, David and Pete here probably think that Fox News are more fair than the BBC is

    Opinions aren’t necessarily correct.

    It is not our place to to regulate or change anything about the programming that they prefer

    And once again, no one is suggesting anything of the sort.

    How can any regulator of speech or news be thought to be unbiased

    There is absolutely no suggestion of either. You either misunderstand the conversation or are being deliberately obtuse.

  50. WSJ looks ok on first sight.

    For example the article on how the poisoning of Novalny could lead to a German appraisal of NorthStream2, which would in turn promote one of Trump’s policies.
    I can’t imagine where you’d find that in one of the left of centre sources.

    On the other hand, the article on the revelations in Woodward’s new book wouldn’t appear on the other side.

    It’s good to get a range of different views, but they can be found everywhere. Where the real deficit is is in informed and objective reporting of daily events, regardless of which side the news may “benefit”.

  51. The WSJ has always been good and if anything has upped its game over the past few years.

    I am so disappointed in the US media in general. The quality level is incredibly low. The lack of quality is a worse issue to me than the bias.

    A smaller country like the UK has BBC, Sky, the Economist. No US TV or magazine news outlet comes close to any of these in terms of depth.

  52. I can’t imagine where you’d find that in one of the left of centre sources.

    We are told that this is a Commie rag, Noel:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-germany-russia-pipeline-navalny-poisoning-novichok-b404922.html

  53. Nord Stream will be fully operational before long, no matter what anyone says.

  54. Paul, yes, I like the Independent. But it isn’t an American publication, and sometimes you’d like to get sources closer to the ground, though maybe it’s a mistake to imagine Ind or BBC have less direct knowledge of the US than American sources.

    The Ind article also doesn’t mention any benefit for Trump. It’s a trivial matter in this case, but a mention would definitely reassure a reader more that the reporting is objective.

    One site I’ve almost completely stopped looking at for this reason is CNN. You have a look and are immediately hit by about 5 or 6 strong articles on what a terrible week it’s been for Trump, what an awful man he is and how badly he’s going to do in November. The same day-in, day-out.
    That may all be true, but you always have the feeling that they’re exaggerating certain stories and ignoring others.

  55. The CNN of of the 1990s was an honest voice.

    It’s unwatchable now. Don Lemon is a complete idiot

    And there are at least two different CNN broadcasts – one for US only, one for international.

    You are probably getting the international one. Not sure if it is more or less biased than the US only version.

    I used to like the international one because at least it reported some foreign news, not the usual Dems vs Republicans horse opera

  56. The Ind article also doesn’t mention any benefit for Trump. It’s a trivial matter in this case, but a mention would definitely reassure a reader more that the reporting is objective

    Not by name but I think this is decipherable enough:

    The United States, which is keen to increase liquefied natural gas (LNG) sales to Europe, also opposes the pipeline and has targeted some companies involved in it with sanctions.

    But it isn’t an American publication

    I’m personally unaware of any centre left equivalent of the WSJ but then I don’t ponder on US print media much however for me CNN definitely seems to have a clear anti Trump, (as opposed to pro Dem), position.

    It’s a mistake to imagine Ind or BBC have less direct knowledge of the US than American sources.

    It’s a mistake Pat seems to frequently make and not only is it a mistake but I think that in many instances the Euro / Brit publications are more analytical of US items that many US sources.

  57. I don’t watch a lot of CNN, but I don’t think that they have any real conservative people there, and they have a zillion Democrats, including Cuomo’s brother, and some that are way at the left end of the spectrum like Van Jones.

  58. Al Jazeera and RT (Russia Today) are both available to everyone hee on Freeview and they are both quite good. Yes you have to look past RTs unsubtle and so obvious pro Putin Russia can do no wrong bias but it does put out some good well made interesting features and Al Jazeera – so different now from the original perception we had in the west that it was the Jihadi Broadcasting corporation when it first started is also a very comprehensive and often in depth inteligent reporting news channel.

  59. I think that RT has different versions in different regions too. Putin’s oligarch friends fund it very well.

    The US version is a biased joke, with hardly any viewers at all.

  60. Phatoms

    at certain times of the day the US version is broadcast here and it is not as good as the London/Moscow one. It comes across as a sort of FOX NEWS alternative but engaged in very heavy America bashing, which the UK version doesn’t really do.

  61. First off you all assume a lot.

    I consume news like an alcoholic consumes booze.

    I’ve said it multiple times my daily routine starts with coffee and the WORLD newsfeeds.

    Oh I’m a Trumper, I’m a FOX Panatic. I am now nor ever have been either. I watch 3 shows on Fox the 6:00 News, Tucker and Levin. One news 2 opinion, that’s it. The rest of FOX is shit.

    Investigative reporting is long dead, general just the facts reporting is long dead. All you get from any publication today is journalism which is the blending of reporting with opinion spun as News. If you want to get a picture of what really happened on anything you better read at least 3 different versions from 3 publications with different political bias, or you are just simply not getting an honest view.

    As for foreign press getting anything right, sorry it just doesn’t happen. Occasionally you will get a better read on something just from the fact of it being an outsiders perspective. As for reading of the situation on the ground a foreign publication will never get it right whether that’s the BBC on protestors in Philly or the Philly Inquirer reporting on protests in London. Sorry it just can’t be done. Well it can be done and is, but it’s never correct.

    Most of the views on this site prove it, but it’s universal so don’t take it personal.

  62. Investigative journalism is not dead at all

  63. https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/206

  64. This was important, recent, investigative journalism that named names of the powerful, and that caused change

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

  65. RT is a Putin propaganda channel, end of. It should not be free to broadcast in the UK but I suspect that the UK government would prefer to keep the BBC viable in Moscow, and I believe that RT’s reach is mostly via the internet anyway. Obviously Trump has no problems with RT, none whatsoever nosiree.

    Still waiting for Trump to speak on the Navalny poisoning, deafening silence. Maybe he’s too busy organising the attack on Iran. But no doubt he’ll find time to play golf this weekend and charge the Secret Service $600 a room at Mar a Lago.

  66. “I consume news like an alcoholic consumes booze.”

    In great quantity, but with little regard for quality?

  67. and demonstrating the same degree of clear sober conclusions 🙂

  68. Northern Ireland “blockade”

    Amid criticism from Brussels, Johnson accused the EU of attempting to “blockade” Northern Ireland and prevent the transport of food products from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    “I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK,” Johnson wrote in the newspaper

    http://maltawinds.com/boris-johnson-accuses-eu-of-threatening-uks-territorial-integrity-amid-row-over-new-bill/

    Does anyone think that these statements make any sense?

  69. Seamus, on September 12th, 2020 at 10:57 AM Said: Edit Comment
    “I consume news like an alcoholic consumes booze.”

    In great quantity, but with little regard for quality?

    Colm, on September 12th, 2020 at 11:06 AM Said: Edit Comment
    and demonstrating the same degree of clear sober conclusions 🙂

    Jealousy flatters neither of you.