A recent 10-part BBC Radio 4 series examining the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union has been criticized for a perceived imbalance in its guest selection. The series, titled 'Politically: Ten Years After Brexit,' featured 20 guest appearances, with 19 guests discussing negative impacts of Brexit and only one guest presenting a pro-Brexit viewpoint, according to an analysis by the campaign group News-Watch.
The analysis, detailed in a 97-page report, asserts that the BBC deliberately overlooked potential benefits of Brexit. The sole pro-Brexit voice identified was economist Julian Jessop of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA). Other guests reportedly focused on the costs and consequences of leaving the EU without referencing any advantages.
News-Watch also raised concerns that the series did not fully disclose the guests' affiliations or past roles related to the EU. For instance, Sam Lowe, introduced as a consultant at Flint Global, was noted to have previously worked for the anti-Brexit think-tank the Centre for European Reform. Similarly, Sarah Main, who formerly headed the Campaign for Science and Engineering, led an organization that had formally opposed leaving the EU, a detail not shared with listeners. Mujtaba Rahman of the Eurasia Group, identified as a former economist at the European Commission, was also a guest.
The report by News-Watch, led by former BBC journalist David Keighley, claimed that while nine instances of potential Brexit benefits were mentioned in the series, these were either rebutted or not thoroughly explored. The analysis cited areas such as vaccine development, gene-editing divergence, lower US tariffs, and the Turing Scheme as potential positive outcomes that were not adequately featured.
Keighley stated that the series demonstrated the BBC's continued pro-EU stance and unwillingness to impartially examine Brexit's evidence, suggesting that the presentation itself reinforced anti-Brexit judgments. He argued that the summaries by host Alex Forsyth repeatedly presented contested anti-Brexit viewpoints as BBC conclusions, violating impartiality rules.
A BBC spokesperson responded by stating that the series was produced in accordance with the BBC's editorial guidelines for impartiality. The spokesperson added that the series explored changes in policy and public life since Brexit, with contributors providing facts and figures to contextualize both the positive and negative impacts of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.