Thread by @vivamjm

@RichardAENorth as always exposes majority (UK politicians &) MSM as being wholly complicit in this mess owing to their ignorance/bad misinformation

"Basically, what this amounts to is a declaration of intent by the EU that, if Johnson chooses the path of “no deal”,

then in all but a tiny number of areas the United Kingdom is to be left to stew in its own juice.
Yet still, as far as the media goes – so say nothing of our lacklustre politicians – the consequences of walking away without a deal still don’t seem to have sunk in,

typified by a headline in The Times which tells us: “EU threatens to ground British flights”.

This is classic, if moronic response which fails to understand that the purpose of leaving the EU is supposedly to rid ourselves of the grip of EU laws,

Here we have the Commission offering access, albeit on limited basis – with entirely reasonable proviso that it should be reciprocate – & somehow The Times sees this as “a warning that British airlines would be banned from flying to European destinations in the event of a no-deal

The paper also has it that the EU is also warning that it could ban British airlines from serving European destinations “unless Mr Johnson allows European fishing vessels access to UK waters”. Yet this claim is manifestly not true. There is no cross-conditionality.

With this level of reporting, though, it is no wonder that so many newspaper readers end up confused or misinformed, except that this is only the half of it. With the publication of the contingency package, we had idiots railing about a “blockade” and complaining

that access to air and road links would only be available if the UK “signed up to so-called level playing field guarantees”.
This is the substance of the Telegraph report – which is also prattling about a “blockade”. And it is indeed the case that the proposed access

regulation requires that:
…the UK continues to apply sufficiently high standards in the area of air transport as regards: fair competition including the regulation of cartels, abuse of dominant position and mergers; the prohibition of unjustified government subsidies;

the protection of workers; the protection of the environment; safety and security.

But nor, longer term, should such provisions be considered objectionable if the EU is prepared to concede greater freedoms to its lucrative air services market.

There is no way, for instance, the EU could allow a heavily subsidised British airline to cream off business in European airports, offering cheaper tickets by virtue of its subsidies.
And if that is unlikely to happen, what is the problem?

Yet, with the current hothouse atmosphere, where Jeremy Warner writes of a “vindictive EU” turning Brexit into a “punishment” and the Mail openly refers to “blackmail”, it is hard to see any rationality entering the debate.

We even have Johnson talking of a “tour of capitals” in an attempt to secure a deal, apparently not understanding that EU solidarity precludes negotiations other than through Barnier’s team.
When the fool has “put the country on notice” for a no-deal Brexit ....

after telling his Cabinet, in lurid terms, that Brussels wants to “punish” Britain for refusing to be “yoked to EU rules”, we can only fear the worst.
But it will never get better as long as the media allows him to claim, without challenge: “...Australia terms...

. In a sense, I suppose, one would call impending economic ruin an “amazing opportunity”, as he tells us that it is “vital that everyone now gets ready for that Australian option”, as if that was indeed a real thing.
We are, I’m afraid, on the edge of madness,

...with a madman on the bridge, and the media asleep at the helm. No good can come of this."
Full Blog from @RichardAENorth here
turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/br…