"J' accuse" are the famous words that began 19th century, Émile Zola' s, open letter intervening in the case against Captain Alfred Dreyfus, an army officer accused of treason. Basically, Mr. Zola accused the government of running a 'stitch-up' (because he was Jewish) against Dreyfus, even though there was plenty of evidence that the wrong-doer was someone else, namely one Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.
The BBC is by-far the most knowledgeable and respected (world-wide) news reporting agency covering BREXIT. They have experts of their own, and regularly bring on representatives of the various groups and factions that are regarded as players on any topic in question... in this case BREXIT.
Although this may appear to be the most impartial way to report on a topic, I would claim this is not necessarily the case. I give you a few examples. Take for example, the subject of the secession of Scotland and Scottish Independence. We know that there is and always has been a hardcore group of Scots that want their independence. We know that in 2014, they were finally given a referendum in which 'Remain in the UK' won by 55% to 45% 'leave'.
This would appear to be fairly conclusive but anyone that knows about the subject knows full-well this is not the case. Because one of the strongest points that the Remainers (in the UK .. remember this is the Scottish referendum) had in their favour was that they were already in the EU, and secession would not only lose Scotland its membership, but also virtually ensure it could never join because the UK was remaining and could simply veto Scotland's application. Today this has been reversed, and anyone with half a brain can tell you that in the event of any type Brexit, let alone a hardcore NO-DEAL one, this means that another referendum on Scotland could well produce a reversal of the 2014 result.
So one question that could easily be put to the electorate in a poll, and most especially the Leavers is ... "Is the loss of Scotland from the UK worth the price of exit ... or even would your vote be different if you knew that there was a 65%+ chance they would leave the United Kingdom?"
The same, by the way, holds true for Northern Ireland. One thing that the Good Friday agreement did was to bring peace to a troubled island after decades of violence. You see, after the War of Irish Independence in 1922, most of Ireland went its own way except for some Northern territories we now refer to as Northern Ireland. But things are not static, and one of the clauses of the Good Friday Agreement was that a referendum on rejoining the Irish republic could be held in the event of significant changes to the status quo. The Good Friday Agreement made the question Am I Irish or am I British? moot, because now you could be both! Brexit makes this an impossibility and forces the answer to this question. Why do you think the DUP don't want such a referendum?
By the way, there is now also a movement for Wales to break off from the UK. So Leavers, one question you have to ask yourselves is "Is the break up of the United Kingdom a price you are willing to pay?" Bear in mind that it is almost impossible in the long run, to restrain any part of a country if it has decided it wants its independence. So BBC, by not giving sufficient coverage to this, I would say, momentous question, you are in fact playing partisan politics.
Then there is the question of a second referendum. I know that we often hear people's opinions on how this should be run, and if and when... but I have yet to hear the complete subject. The BBC regularly asks what should be the question in the referendum, but as far as I am concerned there is only way to handle it that is complete, unbiased and will give us a real result and one that will be accepted.
It is based on the fact that the term 'referendum' does not have to be binary. In fact, in 8 out of 10 on-line dictionaries I consulted, including the Oxford, the Cambridge and Macmillan's dictionary, the term 'referendum' was simply a single question that the government wants the people' opinion on, with nothing restricting the choices to two.
Had the first referendum been run properly in 2016, then maybe we would not be in this political mess that we are in now, where everybody claims ... "in the name of democracy" that they know best. The same holds true for the 2017 general election where Teresa May thought she could mop up the voters only to end up with a hung parliament.
Exactly the same will hold true for the next election if you think that changing the basic DNA of parliament will give you a solution to the Brexit problem. In all probability we will end up with another hung parliament, and if by some miracle we get to force through a negotiated exit, "what do you think will happen over the next few years when the price of not having full access to the single market or any market for that matter, kicks in, and we are still trying to negotiate some form of deal with the EU?"
There was, is, and always will be only one way to get an acceptable solution to Brexit, and that is a referendum, a real referendum. It was the people that got us into this mess, and I believe the people that will get us out, IF WE ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION!
This is where i challenge the BBC and accuse them of being partisan. They do not mention or even discuss the method of running a real referendum. You see, Leaver's don't like it because they see their vote being divided between the hard-line NO DEAL and those that want a negotiated solution. And Remainers don't like it because the Leavers don't want cancel Article 50 to be on the ballot.
So be it ... because a true meaningful referendum will give everybody a fair and equal chance, initially. How? Simple, just run it like any election in the world that is truly democratic, not first past the post.
In round one you have all the possible solutions and anybody can vote strategically for the preferred outcome. Our goal is to achieve 50%+1 votes. In the event we fail to secure such an outcome, then in round two, the top two scoring options run off against each other, and all those that voted for something else are forced to decide between these two. So, for example we could have in round One,
Accept the Brexit deal we have including but not restricted to, the Northern Ireland backstop.
Continue negotiating till we find a better solution to our exit
Accept 1 above and then target a full regulatory and customs alignment deal
Accept 1 above and then target a Norway style agreement
Accept 1 above and then target a Canada style Agreement
Just leave, NO-DEAL exit
Cancel Article 50 and Remain
Declare war on the EU
and other such options.
This is the only way to run a referendum that will solve our problem, and I challenge the BBC to explain and tell the people that this is an option, a real one. instead of asking everybody's opinion of How do we get there?
For what it's worth, I have run numerous (1 week... that's the maximum) Twitter polls, and have got results I would claim are similar to National ones. I don't claim they are scientific evidence, because I have no idea how they were conducted; but the latest I ran at the end of September was
Look at the results above, only 7% of the respondents prefer the solution we all hope can get through parliament. THIS IS INSANITY people.