The item was prompted by the previous evening’s Mansion House speech by the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, in which he had said Brexit was one of the main reasons the UK economy was not performing as it could and should.  The item was not about the pros and cons of Brexit but about the questions raised by Sir Andrew Bailey’s comments, and the focus was clearly on the economic impact of Brexit to date and how the UK might improve its economic prospects while remaining outside the European Union.  Accordingly, the attitudes of the guests to Brexit itself were immaterial to whether the item maintained impartiality in relation to its chosen topic.  Although the guests agreed with Mr Bailey’s observation that Brexit had had a negative effect on the UK economy to date, this was consistent with the consensus among economists and, so far as the ECU was aware, there was no significant body of economic opinion in support of the view that the economic effects had been positive or even neutral.  The ECU did not agree that the presenter had displayed hostility to Brexit, and noted that the principle example offered in the complaint – that she had opened the item by saying “Brexit is one of the main reasons the UK economy isn’t performing as it could, as it should” – appeared to rest on the misconception that she was expressing her own view, whereas in fact she was reporting the view expressed in Mr Bailey’s speech.

In one respect, however, the ECU considered the item fell short of achieving impartiality.  It proceeded on the basis that the remedy for the problem identified by Mr Bailey lay in closer alignment with the EU, and the discussion focused on what steps in that direction could be taken consistently with the Government having ruled out re-joining the single market or the customs union.  As the complaint pointed out, there is an alternative view that the way to better economic performance is via greater exploitation of the opportunities offered by being outside the EU and its systems of regulation.  It was put to the ECU by Today that, as the debate was prompted by Andrew Bailey’s argument that the UK had to “rebuild relations” with the EU while respecting the decision of the British people, it was reasonable to focus on what that might look like in practice without the need to rehearse what the alternative might be.  In the ECU’s judgement, however, the competing arguments for closer alignment with the EU and more vigorous exploitation of opportunities outside the EU are so clearly a controversial matter that the item should at least have acknowledged the alternative case.

Partly upheld