Not if the boycott is successful and garners mass support. And that isn't too unthinkable, given the levels of anti-establishment sentiment amongst most of the European public.
I don't believe that the referendum is an illusion of choice. I feel that it offers a genuine and substantial opportunity for the British people to make a decision on a very great and profound issue. So I have to disagree with your suggestion of boycotting the vote as not voting offers no incentive for the establishment to act.
But the working class is screwed over either way. If they vote to remain, they will be screwed over by the Eurocrats and the European economic elite. If they vote to leave, they will be screwed over by jubilant xenophobes. It's a lose-lose situation.
How ridiculous all the choreographed and highly organised partying and fireworks every time another member joined the club seems now. I compare the EU as a lifeboat waiting to be launched; the plutocrats and elitist classes, when they realise the game's up, will grab all their wealth, climb aboard and sail off into the sunset while the rest of us fight one another to survive the Euro crash and the ramifications of mixing cultures. Ironic that the pro-EU simpletons are still parroting that the project has prevented any more European wars when it fact it'll cause one. Fasten yer seat belts, it's gonna be a rough ride!
Not so much a question of 'bias' as broadcasting with irritating regularity purely speculative information which is totally wanting of any tangible proof or evidence.
I'll give one - I'm not gonna devote my life to trying to open closed minds - the Planet 9 thing. Read the following from a link which I'll provide at the end and tell me if you find it condescending beyond belief, if you actually believe it, and if the bits I've highlighted aren't aimed at impressionable children rather than intelligent adults? "A huge planet might be sitting at the edge of our solar system without ever being seen. The world which could be about ten times as massive as Earth would be large enough to become the ninth planet of our solar system. The planet hasnt yet been seen by scientists. Instead, they have found it by watching the way that dwarf planets and other objects in the outer solar system move their orbits seem to be disturbed by something huge but hidden sitting out there. If theres going to be another planet in the solar system, I think this is it, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...d-be-hiding-in-our-solar-system-a6823646.html A conjecture of 'might be's, 'could be's, 'if's and 'but's and 'I think's. In other words it amounts to nothing but a lot of meaningless gobbledegook with not a vestige of proof. It's depressing to think anyone with a developed brain would unquestioningly believe it all.
Say something relevant to my post and I'll continue interacting with you, otherwise let's call it a day! ('That's the Independent, not the BBC.' )
I'll give you some help. A recent report concerning the referendum: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887 Give me some examples of BBC bias from it.
Say something relevant to my post and I'll continue interacting with you, otherwise let's call it a day! - - - Updated - - - Say something relevant to my post and I'll continue interacting with you, otherwise let's call it a day! No don't bother, I've decided to unilaterally call it a day!
Now that's not fair, you cannot expect actual examples, I read in the Daily Mail that the BBC was full of left wing pinko's and that is good enough for me! Personally I listen and watch many news programs, if I had to choose just one it would probably be the BBC world service, it is far from perfect but pretty good. I am hoping there will be a good debate on Europe I am undecided at the moment, I doubt there will be though.
There may well be, but those with extremist views will likely shout down anyone with reasoned debate. You only have to look at the discussions surrounding the Scottish referendum to see that. Having said that, my personal belief is that the people wanting out will have to prove to me it is more beneficial for British people than staying in. I'm not seeing anything like that at the moment.
Go on then what? I'm suggesting that you address the salient points in my post, that's 'what I'm getting at'!
Call it a day, then! You don't have any salient points! You claimed the BBC broadcast purely "speculative information that is wanting any tangible proof or evidence" ( your words) as a response to my post asking for examples of bias shown by the BBC. then gave a link to an article published by The Independent in support of that claim. Give a link to a report by the BBC that illustrates your claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35371690/planet-nine-how-to-become-a-planet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35365323 Now can we call it day? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
Those articles aren't particularly sensationalist, especially the one published under science and the environment, but certainly call it a day.
Except that it doesn't claim that there definitively IS a 9th planet, just that there might be, and nobody's suggesting that anyone should believe that the planet exists on that basis - the evidence so far suggests that it is a viable scientific theory worth exploring, which is what scientists will now do. Of course nobody should believe unquestioningly that there is such a thing - nobody's said that there is, and they won't until proof is found (which is what they are looking for). It's not 'meaningless gobbledegook' at all, but a perfectly legitimate report about a currently developing scientific theory, based on some observed evidence in the behaviour of other objects, which scientists are currently exploring further - why shouldn't they report that? Reporting the latest developments in science, including the latest theories that are being explored, is hardly 'purely speculative' on behalf of the news outlets (not on the part of scientists - they haven't just woken up one morning and thought 'hey, let's invent a new fantasy planet and then see if it exists', that's really not how science works at all).
The BBC is essentially 'conservative' (with a small 'c') - it tends to question 'change', and report it as if it's something a bit shocking. Politically, it is somewhat 'biased' in that it gives a disproportionate amount of air time to the 'big 2' parties - that's part of it's 'conservative' bias, too, because that is the 'political establishment' that has controlled the country for decades, so that's what it tends to consider most 'important'. It tries to compensate a bit by allocating time to 'others', but then looks at the EU issue and disproportionately favours UKIP for airtime over any of the other 'others'. It is also very Westminster/London/South East England biased in the relative prominence that it gives to whatever it's reporting (one person dies in Surrey, that's 'national news', 6 people die in Cardiff that's 'regional' - that kind of thing). Of course, right wingers will accuse it of being 'left wing', and left wingers will accuse it of being 'right wing', but what they really mean is that it doesn't actually favour the side that they support, so looks it from their point of view. In reality, its journalists and current affairs staff have a wide range of personal views - you can spot them from time to time, but they are individual rather than corporation-wide. It's certainly not perfect, or perfectly balanced, as a news outlet, but it is a great deal better than many others. It doesn't always get things right, but it does generally try to present both 'sides' of any story (or allow people on both sides to present it themselves, rather). It's no Fox News, operated deliberately and specifically to support a certain view, without any attempt at any kind of balance.
I don't quite agree with you but I'll certainly agree that it is much better than many other popular news outlets like Fox News. Overall I trust the BBC more than I do others.
