It really is another world, isn't it?

[Phil Pascoe]

You can't knock the BBC? Well, you can, actually ... it's easy. By the bye...

You missed my sarcasm.

"Their F1 and MotoGP coverage used to be excellent"

No, I didn't.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It's not the amount, it's the secrecy about it.

Is there 'secrecy' about it ? or is it just so small an amount for work done that it wouldn't show up in the information they publicly release about their budgets ?
There's a fair chance that it's been openly declared at the end of a programme's credits, but no one notices that.

If the EU wanted commercial work done, why not go to a commercial organisation instead of a publicly-funded national broadcaster?

Firstly, because they may be the only people with teh specific expertise to do it. Secondly a lot of the 'BBC' is now commercial divisions that are atsked to make a profit back into the BBC, eg BBC Studios and Post Production who not only supply facilities for BBC programmes, but also supply studio facilities for commercial operations like ITV, C4, Sky etc.

why is the BBC apparently embarrassed by it?

who says they are ?

Read the Spectator article.

The original point was that the BBC received funding from the EU. They do indeed, not just a one-off, but a continuing annual payment. They didn't declare it in their accounts. The BBC applied for the funding, it wasn't something foisted upon them. The only reason we know about it is because of a FOI request on behalf of The Spectator magazine.

Make of that what you will, but the straight fact is that the BBC applied for, and receives, an annual grant from the EU.

Quote - "Over the last three years the BBC has secretly obtained millions of pounds in grants from the European Union. Licence fee payers might assume that the Corporation would have been compelled to disclose the source of this money in its annual reports, but they bear no trace of it specifically. In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’.

Instead of making an open declaration, the BBC’s successful lobbying for this money had to be prised out of it using a Freedom of Information (FoI) request lodged for The Spectator, proving that there was never any danger of the state broadcaster’s bosses volunteering it willingly.

The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming."

 

[Rhossydd]

Read the Spectator article.

I have, have you properly ? because..

but a continuing annual payment.

It doesn't say that.

They didn't declare it in their accounts.

It says they did " In the latest set of accounts, for example, these funds are simply referred to as ‘other grant income’" as pointed out it's insignificantly small in teh whole picture of the BBC's accounts.

The BBC applied for the funding, it wasn't something foisted upon them.

When they're paying out £9m pa for EBU membership each year, it would be irresponsible of them not to obtain any grants their eligible for surely ?

The FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming."

So you're getting steamed up about £1m grant going into programming over two and half years ? with no idea of whether it's funding subtitling in Welsh, making programmes in Gaelic or into John Humphries Swiss post office account to make him give Brexiters are harder time that the government ?

Come back with real facts please.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Facts are quite straightforward. Ignore them and bluster if you like, but there they are above, in black and white - and glorious technicolour.

The BBC has been using some EU funding for research and development, and to make programmes. It chose not to make that fact public, but had to comply with an FOI request. All facts stated above.

The original point made by Eric The Viking in his post was that the BBC had received funding from the EU. You asked for proof of that statement. Proof has been provided.

 

[Rhossydd]

Facts are quite straightforward. Ignore them and bluster if you like, but there they are above, in black and white - and glorious technicolour.
The BBC has been using some EU funding for research and development, and to make programmes. It chose not to make that fact public, but had to comply with an FOI request. All facts stated above.

There's SO little detail in article and precious little fact, and a lot of bias itself, that you can't draw any conclusions at all.

Describing it as a 'bung' on the basis of the information quoted so far is just ridiculous.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Slice it or dice any way you like, Eric's original point that the BBC receives some funding direct from the EU is correct. You wanted proof. There it is.

 

[Rhossydd]

Eric's original point that the BBC receives some funding direct from the EU is correct. You wanted proof. There it is.

Are you deliberately missing the point, or just don't understand ?

A bung is an implication of dishonesty or bribery. Nothing like applying for a legitimate eligible grant.

 

[Jacob]

Thank you, Eric.

The freedom, democracy and Common Law tradition we so often take for granted was built up very slowly over several centuries. It's far too precious to surrender by just voting it away. It could take generations, or centuries, to rebuild it.

Not so. We could drop out of the EU anytime we chose

What worries me about the Brexiters is that they have no positive reasons for leaving - it's all negativity all the way - not to mention fear of bent bananas and other daft bits of nonsense. Doom and gloom!

Is there anything obviously positive to be gained by leaving, other than "freeing" ourselves from the "undemocratic" yoke of johnny foreigner?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Is there anything obviously positive to be gained by leaving, other than "freeing" ourselves from johnny foreigner?

Firstly, I personally wouldn't choose to use the phrase, "Johnny foreigner" in this context. I have great admiration for Europe the geographical entity, the peoples, the cultures and the history. My only problem is with the political entity, the European Union.

What do we have to gain? I think much. Firstly, our right to chose who governs us through the ballot box, and by extension, influence the laws under which we live (earlier in the thread, Droogs mentioned the difference between English and Scottish Common Law, and the Napoleonic and Roman legal traditions of much of the Continent) and the institutions that administer national affairs. Secondly, our freedom to join in association with any nation we see fit (the Commonwealth has been sadly neglected, I feel), and to trade with whoever we like. Thirdly, our freedom to form defence alliances with whom we choose, and to act independently if we feel the nation's best interests would be so served. Our right to control our own borders has been mentioned too - we must currently give preference to an EU national over a Commonwealth citizen, which does seem a tad off, given our long historical association with Commonwealth nations.

One thing a study of history has shown me is that Britain has always been at it's best for both it's citizens and for its contributions to the wider world (in all manner of fields - governmental, legal, scientific, organisational, technological, artistic, you name it) when the people are at their most free to just get on with it. To surrender those freedoms to the cold, bureaucratic hand of an EU superstate, a United States of Europe (which is where the EU is heading), would be a catastrophic mistake both for the UK, and for what it contributes, and could contribute in the future, to the wider world.

Just my opinion, formed after years of reading about world history, and a passing interest in current affairs.

 

[Eric The Viking]

This all started because I slipped up. The EU money going to the BBC is about 25m over ten years:

In euros:
2007: 1,943,146
2008: 6.336.295
2009: 3,498,043
2010: 6,034,385
2011: 354,954
2012: 5,269,083
2013: 6,744,151
Total: 30,180,057 (22,382,997 Sterling)

I understand these numbers come from the "other side", i.e. the Commission, although I don't presently have a definitive source.

To be strictly fair, This EU grant accounts for approximately:

0.086 % of the licence fee income, or
0.067 % of the BBC's total income. in one year (averaged).

The BBC's 2014-15 annual report is here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/2014-15/BBC-FS-2015.pdf The Income part of the balance sheet starts around p.37. It does list other odd sources of funding,but not the EU. Contrast that with a commercial organisation's accounts and controversial items.

The point is that it's concealed, and that people like former Chairman Patten are direct recipients of EU funds from previous employment. Imagine the BBC getting funds directly from, say the Conservatives, and concealing that.

The EU also funds a huge number of journalism prizes, rewarding individuals.

I'd also mention the Charlemagne Prize here too, which also promotes European Integration (nominally awarded by the City of Aachen, it is very strongly influenced by the EU, obviously). It's hard to find it's value (in 1985 it was DM 5,000 plus the gold medal). Past recipients include Churchill (1956), Roy Jenkins, Tony Blair and even The Euro, which, presumably, desperately needed the dosh.

 

[Jacob]

......
The point is that it's concealed,

Assuming that the figures you show are correct then clearly it is not concealed.

...... Imagine the BBC getting funds directly from, say the Conservatives, and concealing that.

It's not concealed and it's not party political there is no comparison

The EU also funds .......etc

The EU is SUPPOSED to be funding worthy causes, amongst other ways of supporting them.

Can you think of any positive benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
I can't.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Can you think of any positive benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
I can't.

Freedom?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Other than "free" trade - which we pay very dearly for - I've yet to find a positive reason for staying in.

 

[Rhossydd]

The point is that it's concealed

'Concealed' ? get real, this is an absolutely insignificant amount in the total accounts.
Two thirds of it went to pay for R&D projects, mainly 3D TV and UHDTV from what I've researched.
That leaves a contribution of 0.022% to programme making. Do you really get enough 'bias' to consider it a 'bung' when it's that tiny ?

There's a lot wrong with the BBC, but picking on this issue as example of it being under the influence of the EU is just plain silly.

 

[Rhossydd]

I've yet to find a positive reason for staying in.

Have you read anything of the effects of what voting to leave will do to the world economic system ?

Just about every major power in the world is urging us to stay in the EU to provide some economic stability.

 

[Jacob]

Can you think of any positive benefits of leaving, other than the many (often imaginary, hypothetical or exaggerated)l disbenefits which we would leave behind?
I can't.

Freedom?

But your "freedom" is "from" the EU it's not a freedom towards anything different which the EU is preventing.
Freedom to do what exactly? We hear all about the disbenefits of the EU but so far I've heard absolutely nothing at all about the positive benefits of leaving.
What would we be able to do which we can't do now, and how will this benefit us?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Freedom to do what exactly? We hear all about the disbenefits of the EU but so far I've heard absolutely nothing at all about the positive benefits of leaving.
What would we be able to do which we can't do now, and how will this benefit us?

Jacob, are you just being deliberately obtuse? I've answered that question twice, once with a screed and once with a one-word answer.

Perhaps you'd like to set out for us why you think the UK being slowly subsumed to the EU superstate (which is what will happen if we vote to remain) would be beneficial for UK citizens and the wider world?

 

[Eric The Viking]

We could make our own laws, in our own interests, in our own parliament, for a start.

We could make trade deals that benefit us.

We could stop massively subsidising failed projects like the Euro, and spend the resources saved more effectively, either here or elsewhere.

We could get our own fishing grounds back, to manage them properly (no more overfishing, quotas, discards, etc.).

We could re-establish the Commonwealth as our trading partners.

We could control our borders properly and limit immigration from EU countries to those people we can use productively and who won't be a drain on our limited resources. Right now we pay benefits to people here who could work but don't, and the low low cost of immigrant labour has resulted in things like zero-hours contracts and absolute minimum wages.

Any of those negative?

 

[Jacob]

.... and the low low cost of immigrant labour has resulted in things like zero-hours contracts and absolute minimum wages.

...

The "low low cost of immigrant labour" isn't their choice - it's the choice of their employers. Workers don't want low wages and zero hour contracts until they are desperate and have no choice.
We need higher minimum wages, strong protection of workers rights, strong unions working for immigrants as well as the indigenous population and then we'd have a level playing field. And a healthier economy - what goes around comes around - poorly paid workers are bad customers who can't afford to buy things.

 

[AJB Temple]

Yes, unfortunately. Sorry to bite back, but I do thing we need to look rationally. I am in the "mind not made up yet" camp. But to answer your points Eric:

We do make our own laws now. Too many some would say. There are EU laws but we simply do not exploit the system as well as the Germans and French. We need to operate smarter.
Making trade deals sounds easy, but generally there is a price to pay to get market access. Research this - it is complex. Large risk. Expensive.
Subsidising the Euro is a meaningless soundbite. We still have the £ and it floats agains the Euro, $ etc. Collapsing £ is a serious risk. Remember how much energy, agri comms, etc we import. Large UK cash outflow. How big a deficit do you want to finance? The reality of this is that the strong economies like Germany are subsidising southern EU weak ones when it comes to the Euro. Not us.
Fishing grounds is utter peanuts. Really. For better of worse our economy has a large or very large dependence on our global position in the financial services industry. It is a huge benefit to our economy, despite our perpetual flagellation of bankers. EU will deal with that pronto if we leave. This will be a very large own goal as we have largely destroyed our manufacturing base (unlike Germany) and this will take at least a decade to rebuild, probably twice or three times that as we lack money and skills and the political drive is very much missing. Labour will never deliver this unfortunately as it requires entrepreneurs, capital and risk.
Commonwealth - we can trade with them now! Are you seeing lots if unsatisfied demand? Commonwealth is history. The globe is not pink.
Controlling our borders is illusory. The French have migrant camps because we have a border that is operated, by consent, in France. Post Brexit the French will export the problem to us pronto.

It is easy to argue in soundbites. We need an intelligent unbiased analysis before we vote. Adrian